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

1AR Counter observation: There are other measures which are either less restrictive, or more oppressive. Obviously, the least restrictive measures should be exhausted from lower to higher sequentially. 1) Diplomacy - Representatives from all parties discuss and resolve the matter(s) in conflict. 2) Non Economic Sanctions - Examples include: removing ambassadors, blocking votes, blocking memberships, or boycotting events. Non-Economic Sanctions A sender country also may apply non-economic sanctions against a target country to persuade its government to change policy. In contrast to economic sanctions, which are intended to penalize a target country financially, non-economic sanctions are aimed at denying legitimacy or prestige. Although the following list is not exhaustive, non-economic sanctions include: Canceling ministerial and summit meetings with a target country; Denying a target country's government officials visas to enter the sender country; Withdrawing a sender country's ambassador or otherwise downgrading diplomatic and military contacts with a target country; Blocking a target country from joining international organizations; Opposing a target country's bid to host highly visible international events, such as the Olympics; Withholding foreign aid; and Instructing a sender country's directors to vote against new loans to a target country at the World Bank or other international financial institutions. http://www.heritage.org... As requested, I have presented 2 examples of alternatives to economic sanctions. OPP C-1: My opponent would have us believe that if economic sanctions were lifted, the 6 countries, namely Bolivia, Jamaica, Qatar, Sudan, Togo, and the UAE would reverse their national rulings and resume human trafficking efforts. This implies that the economic sanctions, or threat thereof, MUST be in a perpetual state. Therein lies no less than a certain degree of naiivity. Human trafficking is an international crime. The governments of countries have an obligation to stop and punish offenders within their jurisdictions. If human trafficking is a function of the federal government of any nation, they are guilty of international crime, which shoul dbe addressed by the international community. OPP C-2: Again, my opponent is citing a situation of global proportion. Canada is not the world police, nor is Korea the sole offender of green house gas release. Further, there are conflicting arguments, both with seemingly convincing evidence for and against global warming. Of the arguments for, there are yet further disagreements as to how much damage is natural, and how much is man-made. Many nations are working to become more green friendly. Generally speaking, these examples are not of governments caving into pressure, but rather caving to police and enforce existing law. DEFENSE of my positions: My C-1: My bad, 34% not 36%. My opponent hand picked 2 successful examples. Here is the article I quoted. A Poor Track Record Historically, economic sanctions have a poor track record. Between 1914 and 1990, various countries imposed economic sanctions in 116 cases. They failed to achieve their stated objectives in 66 percent of those cases and were at best only partially successful in most of the rest.1 Since 1973, the success ratio for economic sanctions has fallen precipitously to 24 percent for all cases.2 http://www.heritage.org... My C-2: The 1997 economic sanctions against Iraq are a clear indicator. The 2009 economic sanctions against Gaza. Any rational human being doesn't have to have it spelled out for them to know that the innocent citizens of nations suffer indignity, lack of food/drink, lack of medicines, and diminish the opportunity for financial successes. My C-3: Again, we are back to common sense. Do I need to cite numerous references of the obvious? When a country imposes sanctions against another country, they are losing economic trade with that country. There is no exchange of goods and services at least for the items being sanctioned. Therefore, the imposing country is in fat losing commerce with the sanctioned nation. Further, by multilateral sanctions, other nations who would otherwise have traded with the nation being sanctioned have also lost trade. Therefore, economic sanctions have interrupted international free trade. My C-4: Oversimplified. Suppose the U.S. places an economic sanction against Spain against wheat. Not only will Spain not be allowed to receive wheat from the U.S., they will not be allowed to receive wheat from anywhere. Simply cutting off wheat from one supplier will not achieve the desired effect if they can get the item from another supplier. Without engaging in a semantics/definition game, we should have more clearly defined economic sanctions. SUMMARY: I have given examples of how economic sanctions are in fact harmful to human rights as well as given worthy alternatives to imposing economic sanctions. I respectfully request a PRO ballot.