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

At the bottom of the 3rd round please do not reply with an argument as there is no 2nr The Geneva convention protects innocent non-combatant's from violence during war. However in today's post Cold War world more needs to be done to protect these innocents from harm when open war is declared less and less in favor of more subtle means of achieving goals, And it is for this reason that I stand resolved that Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy goals. To begin I would like offer a few clarifying definitions. Economic sanctions are according to Adam Winkler limitations on trade or access to markets enacted to encourage a target nation to behave in a way preferred by the sanctioning nations. A definitive characteristic of economic sanctions is that they are specifically intended to cause economic harm to another state. The basic idea is that "the burden of economic hardship imposed by sanctions will become intolerable" to the citizens of the target state . Ought implies a moral imperative and therefore a moral framework will be used for this round. Foreign Policy Goals in short are the objective of the sanction a prime example is the anti-apartheid sanctions in South Africa as well as the sanctions placed on Cambodia in response to the actions of the Khmer rouge. My value is morality. Because Ought is used in the wording of the resolution a moral framework is the only logical choice for this topic. Morality is the general execution of what is right as compared to what is wrong. My criterion is respecting human life and this goes beyond merely preserving life while that is a large component of it one must also not devalue human life by treating it as a mere tool. Respecting human life has to be moral because if life had no value then decisions would not matter and therefore morals would not exist to judge if they are right or wrong. Contention 1. Economic Sanctioning uses the suffering of the innocent citizens to achieve goals which have nothing to do with them. A Sanctions main purpose is to harm the innocent civilians enough that they can no longer stand it and revolt against and overthrow their leaders or at least pressure them enough to the point where they crack and give in to the will of the sanctioning party. This is a spectacular example of people namely the innocents worth being reduced down to that of a tool to be used as the sanctioning body sees fit with no regard to the welfare of these innocents, and these sanctions are killing people over half a million Iraqi children under the age of five died because of the sanctions placed on Iraq according to the UN. To lend even more credibility to my claim I quote Adeno Addis in his article Economic sanctions and the problem of evil 2003 "The strong version of the moral argument is Kantian in its outlook. It objects to economic sanctions on the ground that often if not always sanctions target innocent civilians for suffering as a means to achieving a foreign policy objective contrary to Kant's categorical imperative that we treat "humanity, whether in [our] person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. The argument here is that it is morally unacceptable to impose suffering on innocent sectors of the target state, as sanctions do" Not only is the worth of the innocents being attacked by sanctions but human life as a whole is discounted, by negating we not only contribute to the suffering of millions but we destroy ourselves. I have shown that the practice of Economic Sanctioning devalues human life by using innocents as a tool. Devaluing life is disrespectful to it so the criterion falls. Contention 2 Economic Sanctioning hinders humanitarian efforts. A. Due to the Nature of the sanctioned countries those who have the least power and money are usually the ones being targeted by the policy that the sanction is trying to change, assuming the policy is of a humanitarian, and these people are usually hit the hardest by these sanctions. By passing these sanctions we are crippling the very people who share a common enemy with us and might even be friendly with us if we weren't starving them to death. Basic Logic states that its not a good idea to further impoverish the only opposition to the policy yo u are trying to get rid of. An example would be of the Anti-apartheid sanctions in south Africa. If William F De Klerk had not repealed the Apartheid by his own free will the blacks that apartheid oppressed would continue to suffer more than the government did due to the sanction and would eventually be completely unable to muster any show of force against their oppressors. B. If the foreign policy goal is political as compared to humanitarian the morality of the sanction is even more suspect. In these instances the suffering of innocents is used by the sanctioning country even when the leadership is innocent of any crime other than disagreeing with the sanctioning body. An example of this would be the ongoing economic sanctioning of Cuba. Embargo were placed on Cuba not because of any human rights violations but because America dislikes Communism. Hindering humanitarian efforts and aiding in the murder of innocents not only takes away human life but devalues it as not as important as political agendas and is disrespectful to life and once again the criterion falls. As a brief under view sanctions are extremely detrimental to the sanctioning countries economy. According to Washington economist Robert O' Quinn during his first term President bill Clinton imposed sanctions on 35 countries that make up 42% of the worlds population and consume 19% of US exports. This immense loss of trade is simply not fiscally responsible. And because of these reasons I can only urge an affirmative ballot.