Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Answers to her previous questions: Free Trade AGREEMENTS [between countries] are part of the Free trade value, correct? Yes. Can a government impose taxes? They can but should they? Do any countries of the current day use free trade? If so… State All Nations. Yes they work with other countries. Look to Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) - 31 July 1975- renamed 2 November 2005 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) AANZFTA ASEAN Plus Three African Free Trade Zone (AFTZ) East African Community (EAC) Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Southern African Development Community SADC) Southern African Customs Union (SACU) Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) - 5 August 2004 Central American Integration System (SICA) Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ) European Economic Area (EEA) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement (CISFTA) - 15 april 1994 Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) - 29 March 1996 Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) - June 1957 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) - 18 February 1960 Andean Community (CAN) G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3) Mercosur (Mercosul) Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)… all of these agreements and unions are currently operating under free trade. Even if we aren't using economic sanctions, specifically, government still has the power to control trade, correct? It depends on what trade you are considering. Are we talking legal trade or illegal trade? They could have the power, however they do not have the authority because they are the government and trade is part of the economic sector of the United States. If the government were to control all trade we would be nothing more than If SOME countries are harmed by free trade, does this mean there is a negative potential for free trade? Who said some countries were harmed by free trade? Everything has negative potential. However the degree to which the negative potential is seen is what matters most. Free Trade has a lesser degree of negative potential than what economic sanctions have. So therefore free trade is a better option. What if free trade has negative impacts on the environment, jobs, and/or, government funding? Government funding would not be affected because free trade has no government interference. If anything free trade would create jobs and help the environment. How does free trade achieve foreign policy objectives? By having free trade we allow all countries to grow to some degree and we eliminated unstable governments. By having all stable governments we will be able to achieve what we need without having to worry about the random country that is about to fall back into communism…you know who you are. How would government's control of trade cause harm to the trade realm, specifically? Also, how much is it [trade] affected? (I am looking for a statistic, or other example.) Do business owners/companies seek to obtain profit? Do business owners/companies try to evade/eliminate competition? If entrepreneurs seek to invest money to the most profitable industry will this not harm other industries as well? No because industries are different from the one you are talking about. I am going to guess you meant business. However to answer your question, the trade will be done throughout the entire world. The investment of a few entrepreneurs into one industry will be miniscule compared to the entire world. How does that "undermine Castro's authority"…? it does so by allowing the citizerns of cuba to gain the money they need and freely trade with the united states to be able to purchase the materials they wish at a cheaper price than having to go through the castro himself. How would removing economic sanctions eliminate socialism? What is the link there? it would in Cuba because as previously stated we would allow the citizens to purchase goods that are cheaper from other countries and just by doing that, we are taking away income from the castro himself. By taking away a majority of his income we will then continue to criticize his government until it finally collapsed. Why would Cuba accept Democracy, out of nowhere, just because we lifted the embargos present? (Did any diplomat, preferably Castro himself, say this would be true?) Because as I stated in my case we would undermine his authority and as previously stated we would criticize his government. Within time the citizens of Cuba would overthrow his socialism and replace it with a much more stable form of government. Democracy is the most common kind of government with the most benefits. It is also one of the most stable forms too. And of course I got a quote from the Castro himself, I went to Cuba asked him and he gave me a quote about his demise. It was especially hard because in the current embargo one cannot travel to Cuba unless they are of Cuban decent. And I am merely German. A nation seeks to eliminate threats of other nations, correct? Depends on the nation. ____________________________________________________________ Now time ask questions :) What exactly is a right reason? Do economic sanctions affect the citizens of the country that they are imposed upon? Having children die from sanctions is ok, as long as its not as many men that die from wars? Are all laws just and right? Do you believe there are more violent countries that should have sanctions upon them? Do you agree that economic sanctions themselves are not enough?