Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

NOTE: This is my first debate on this website but only SERIOUS debaters please who fully understand LD (Lincoln Douglas) style value-based debate. It is because economic sanctions do not properly preserve justice, I urge an affirmation of today's resolution; "Resolved, Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives." To clarify this round, I offer the following definitions: Economic sanctions: the imposition of international economic boycotts and embargoes. Achieve: to gain with effort. Foreign Policy Objectives: the objectives of the diplomatic and economic policy of a nation or group of nations in its interactions with other nations. My value for this debate will be justice, defined as rendering unto each their due. Each individual in a justified society ought to be ensured a fair way of living and a healthy life, and thus, my value criterion is preservation of life. It is a belief in the inherent value of each individual from which we derive a need for abolishing economic sanctions that do not provide for the preservation of life and the provision for the pursuit of individual happiness and ultimately do not respect life. Thus, when we undermine a respect for human life, it becomes increasingly likely that rights violations will run rampant and individuals will not be rendered their due. The affirmative's first contention is that the people carrying out the sanctions should target elites, or individuals with the most power or money over simply embargoing a whole country, as elites are often the cause of the difficulty of achieving foreign policy objectives- not the nonviolent and noncombatant citizens of a country. As stated by The Council on Foreign Relations, "In the great majority of cases, sanctions should target elites, [while they have been targeting] the populace at large. Iraqis are not our enemy. Nor are Cubans. We can be imaginative in targeting elites. We can single out individuals and agencies that give offense or outrage. We can devise civil and criminal punishments so that their persons and property are at risk whenever they travel or do business in a civilized world. This reminds that economic sanctions are inherently bad as they don't target the problem and instead target the nation as a whole. To add, According to the BBC, "Economic sanctions have contributed to a spike in infant mortality rates, a fallen literacy rate, starvation and is best defined as genocide." Ultimately, economic sanctions do not uphold the preservation of life if so many of the innocent are killed and therefore cannot uphold justice. We need alternatives such as diplomacy, which I will later discuss, that better uphold preservation of life and better target the problem itself, namely the elites, not nation at large. The rationale behind using sanctions is also flawed when we consider that we have other ways to target the noncombatants as well, and not the populace, while still being effective. The affirmative's second contention is that the facts show these economic sanctions simply do not work enough to justify use. There is a long list of failed sanctions, the US embargo against Cuba being one. According to The CATO Institute, "The objective of the U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the island's day of liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically. The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, but all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. More than a decade after losing billions in economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is poor and dysfunctional and poses NO threat to American or regional security." Another example of failure is Poland, which didn't democratize from sanctions, and instead only with from withdraw of the Brezhnev Doctrine. I could continuously quote times they haven't worked, which is 5% of the time, according to Robert Pape's reevaluation of HSE's findings. But these examples are showing that the reasoning behind implementing economic sanctions is flawed, as they simply do not achieve foreign policy objectives in the large majority of cases. They are, in fact, worse for the countries involved, and we cannot justify our actions, as they simply do not work. Cuba still poses no threat to the US's citizen's after or before this sanction and Castro is still leading a communist country. But this terrible situation could have been prevented if we had used a better alternative such as using diplomacy through the UN as a medium, which over the centuries has worked many times to justify its use according to The Official United Nations Website. Diplomacy prevents the need for these sanctions, and also gives us peaceful, nonviolent resolves to achieve foreign policy objective. Furthermore, it solves the problem much quicker and better preserves life for the world as a whole. (In the end, we can't justify sanctions as they kill and fail to preserve life and much more often than not, fail to achieve foreign policy objectives.) The affirmative's third contention is that economic sanctions cut off trade-, which can lead to many unprecedented and unintended problems with multiple nations. Countries over thousands of years, have all required trade to ensure life is preserved by providing goods and the growth of their nations. But when we cut off the means of a country to trade, we severely cut down the lifeblood of the nation. This may be what we want with these economic sanctions, so you may wonder why this is so detrimental. It is because of the slippery slope precedent that follows this. If one country is embargoed, that obviously can hurt trade with other countries, so multiple countries suffer as a result, and economic sanctions backfire and hurt those that are not only innocent, but should not be involved with the sanctions. As stated by The Finance Market, "The importance of international trade cannot be ignored. It has contributed immensely to the all sided development of a nation. It has brought about political, social and economic upliftment of countries. International trade, in a majority of the countries have contributed significantly to the gross domestic product or the GDP. It has served as a platform for "globalization". This further illustrates that we cannot use economic sanctions as they would hurt trade, which is incredibly important for multiple nations, and the welfare of its citizens lives, as well as making sure their due is ensured. It doesn't just affect them; it affects the country's the nation trades with, and those around them. In the end, the sanction impacts more innocent than just the target nation, and we see these actions being unjustified as we would be limiting globalization on an unintended scale and in the end not achieve foreign policy objectives, and therefore we cannot further the human race's progression when items, ideas and information not being shared. (We then see that cutting off trade is an unjust action that has led to lack of preservation of life, as it cuts vital resources needed for nation to survive). It is for these reasons I strongly urge an affirmative vote.