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

2AR ALTERNATIVES Other alternatives include but are not limited to: diplomacy, and non-violent trade boycotts. While similar in intent, a well-organized, coalitional trade boycott would effectively serve the same without the violence. A group of nations would merely freeze financial assets and cut off all trade. Ideally, participating nations that supply needs to the boycotted country would be included. A true sanction would have to be enforced by military/police members with weapons. Let's examine some of the tasks necessary to enforce a true sanction. A) All mail incoming to the sanctioned country would have to be opened and inspected. B) All vehicles would have to be stopped and inspected. C) All travelers & luggage, both arriving & leaving would have to be inspected. D) All aircraft coming and going would have to be inspected. E) All seagoing both coming and going would have to be inspected. COUNTER While a nation may presume that they are protecting their citizens by imposing a sanction, they are also depriving them of trade and capital from the sanctioned nation. Further, given the above assets necessary to enforce a sanction, they would have to put many of their citizens in harm's way to do it. That is not only costly, but also counterproductive. LONG TERM If diplomacy fails, the long term solution may have to be removal of the corrupt leaders/government by force. However unpleasant as that may prove to be, all future relations would be tranquil, thereby making the long term solution more viable. OP C-1: Depending on what items were being sanctioned, it could have a catastrophic effect on human rights. If the restricted items included food, clothing, medicine, & needed building materials then human rights of mere existence would placed in grave danger, moreover, UNJUST. If sanctioned items were technology, raw materials, textiles, or base items; at the very least, citizens in those industries of the country being sanctioned would lose their employment security, and the primary means to earn their living. This would lead to hardship in their right to earn a living. OP C-2: I concur and stipulate that no one has the right to force trade upon another. I'm not really sure where you intended to go with this one. OP C-3: Resentment can last for generations. Sanctions put otherwise neutral countries between a rock and a hard place. OP VPC: Governmental legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder and is quite subjective if not completely enigmatic. Further, his criterion is double speak. While sanctions may indeed protect their citizens, they also cause harm and hardship upon their citizens. FINAL COMMENT When countries are not in compliance, they know that sanctions usually follow failed diplomacy. Therefore they CAN begin preparations to deny sanctions that are likely sure to follow. While they may obtain needed items, they must do so at great risk and great cost. MY CONCLUSION: I have shown my opponent's case to be as full of holes as an economic sanction. Historically, economic sanctions have proven to be largely unsuccessful at best, and at times, embarrassingly disastrous. Further, as I stated, economic sanctions are unjust to all parties, impractical, and violate human rights. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the judges vote AFF/PRO. I wish to thank my opponent for an excellent debate! In L-D fashion, there is no such thing as a 2NR, therefore further discussion should be disregarded.