Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

I negate the resolution as stated. Observation 1: The term, "ought" is defined as a moral obligation, further synonymous with should derived from shall which indicates a concrete requirement along the same lines as "will" or "must". By adding "not" indicates that the affirmative's position states that economic sanctions should not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Observation 2: In order for the affirmative to win, the affirmative is required to prove that there is never a circumstance where economic sanctions are to be used. In order for the negative to win, the negative must demonstrate that at least one circumstance exists in which economic sanctions ought to be used. Value Premise: Security Value Criterion: Preservation of Rights & Safety C-1: Rewards & Consequences A. Every decision is a choice. A choice to do the right thing and receive self satisfaction, praise, or possibly some type of reward. A choice to do the wrong thing and possibly accept some type of consequence. The international community, as well as the United Nations, issues consequences in the form of a series of increasingly restrictive and aggressive forms of punishment after diplomacy has failed. According to the Heritage Foundation, these measures include levels of diplomacy; non-economic sanctions, economic sanctions; and military action. Economic sanctions are the last resort prior to going to war when the less restrictive measures have proven unsuccessful. B. The punishment must fit the crime. 1. Initially, the intent of counselling is not to punish, but rather to change the undesirable behavior or action. This can be likened to diplomacy. If diplomacy does not resolve the issue at hand, the next step would be to apply non-economic sanctions such as: denying visas, removing diplomats, blocking membership to prestigious alliances, or boycotting summits, meetings, etc. If this too should fail to achieve the desired result, the next logical step is indeed economic sanctions. The beauty of economic sanctions is that the imposing nation decides what items to sanction. This goes hand in hand with the punishment fitting the crime. A common misconception is that when economic sanctions are imposed, the nation being sanctioned is isolated from the world and receives nothing. The skies turn gray, everyone wears black sack cloth, everyone is sad and depressed and is forced to go without food, water, clothing, and medicine. To the contrary, the imposing nation may simply deny or restrict as few as 1 single item! The items to be sanctioned are the same items that are causing the controversy. In theory, no one even has to die, and only a select few have to be inconvenienced. 2. One of the most important functions of a government is to protect the legitimate rights and safety of it's citizens. Let's use a semi-hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. Let's say the fictious nation of Perso-Eran has stated an intent to attack and destroy the nation of Ziono-El Bet. The nature of their attack is based upon the doctrine of intolerance in their religious way of life. Perso-Eran isn't strong enough militarily to accomplish this undertaking in conventional warfare, therefore, they decide that the better strategy would be to develop a nuclear weapon with which to attack the fictitious nation of Ziono-El-Bet, and drive them into the Blue Sea. They attempt to disguise their declared intent by claiming to obtain items such as centrifuges, plutonium, and uranium for "alternative energy development". The leaders of Ziono-El-Bet see this for what it really appears to be and send their ambassador to discuss the matter. Perso-Eran refuses to see the ambassador, and insists that the items requested from Russland are for energy only. Ziono-El-Bet pulls their ambassador and threatens to deny travel visas to Perso-Eran. While mildly inconvenienced, Perso-Eran continues to seek items for their wmd, I mean, energy program. The leaders of Ziono-El-Bet impose economic sanctions against Perso-Eran with respect to receipt of plutonium, uranium, and centrifuges. Note they did not kill anyone, they did not inconvenience but a handful of Perso citizens (those which were being hired to develop the wmd, I mean, energy project). So as to avoid going to war, Ziono-El-Bet has recognized the need to follow protocol, and use the stair step measures in sequence to finally stop a potential attack on their nation. Therefore they validated the value of security by preserving the rights and safety of their citizens. Further, they did so by ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, they only denied the items necessary to protect their security. C-2: Semantics Ecclesiastes Chapter 3 tells us that there is a time and place for everything under the sun. "Everything" is an all inclusive term which extends to economic sanctions. Economic sanctions are something, something is part of everything, thus --> there is indeed a time and place for economic sanctions. Summary, I have successfully negated the resolution as stated. The Affirmative's case: The Negative will stipulate the Affirmative's provided definitions. VP: Protection of Human dignity. Based upon the source provided by the Affirmative, "eg. Dignity cannot be quantified" implies that the stated Value Criterion (which is used to measure the value premise) cannot measure the VP. I have demonstrated that a possible scenario exists in which the average citizen would not suffer the effects of an imposed economic sanction. Value Criterion: If nothing can quantify human dignity, but social welfare can, why was it necessary to include that as a source? Sanctions can be applied that do not violate articles 48, 51, and 54 as stated. OP C-1: The Negative will stipulate that economic sanctions against Cuba were not only unsuccessful, but also a childish & revengeful debacle of foreign policy. They were unsuccessful because they were unrealistic. Had they been SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, & timely) there likely may have been a different outcome. I extend this same example to Contentions 2 & 3. OP C-2: The Negative will stipulate that economic sanctions against Japan backfired. OP C-3: The Negative will stipulate that economic sanctions against Burma/Myanmar were ultimately unsuccessful. Extended; the Negative will further stipulate that in a study by the Heritage Foundation, economic sanctions were imposed a total of 116 times during the period 1914-1990, and were unsuccessful a whopping 66% of time! Conversely, they were successful 34% of the time. Do economic sanctions have a history of futility? YES Do economic sanctions have the capability to degradate? YES Has there ever been a time to use economic sanctions? YES Have economic sanctions ever been successful? YES, in fact, mathematically speaking 34% of the time. Given the above, I have met my responsibility and request a Negative ballot. Thank you!