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

AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL My Opponent's Case: I concur that the natural rights of citizens are infringed upon when a corrupt leader interrupts harmonious relations, and that other nations, if their natural rights have been abridged, have the right to attempt to regain said rights. However, I disagree with my opponent's contention, however, that it is "necessary" to impose sanctions. I have demonstrated that alternatives exist to achieve foreign policy objectives. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that economic sanctions have repeatedly failed to achieve foreign policy objectives in the past, and nothing has been presented that indicates that the past failures of economic sanctions will somehow transmute into future successes. Economic sanctions in the context of this debate are important for their impact upon foreign policy objectives. The success of an economic sanction is not, ergo, a matter of predetermined goals, such as the inspection of x number of ships, but rather its impact upon the policies of the offending nation and how well it protects natural rights and upholds justice. My opponent claims that the undeserved suffering and oppression of the people supports his case of natural rights—the preservation of life, liberty, and property. We do not preserve the lives of the citizens by restricting medical supplies (such as in the case of Iraq). We do not free the people by strengthening the resolve of their corrupt leaders to cling to power. My opponent concurs that the people are not to blame for the policies of their corrupt leaders—how, then, is it just that the bulk of our punishments affect them? It is not just. We are not preserving natural rights; we are persecuting them. MY CASE: 2VC: My opponent claimed that no alternatives had been presented to economic sanctions, and that they were therefore the best method of achieving foreign policy objectives. Military action is but one option is a list that I provided, and should, in my view, be used only if necessary—that is, if all options on that list have been exhausted. Indictments by international criminal courts, like those used for Rwanda or Kosovo, for example, would be an option in cases of humanitarian abuses. War is emphatically not the only option, and it has never been an implication that military action always be considered as the most effective way of achieving foreign policy objectives. VP: I have defined government legitimacy as that of a government fulfilling its role to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. The imposition of sanctions fails to improve the government legitimacy of either the imposing or offending nations, as foreign policy objectives are not achieved in the former and policy changes are not effected in the latter. Because economic sanctions do not uphold government legitimacy, other options (as discussed previously) should be pursued. C1: I concurred that in a hypothetical situation, well-defined economic sanctions might succeed at their objectives. However, as my opponent says, there is no evidence that well-defined economic sanctions have succeeded at their objectives—this all exists purely in the realm of conjecture. Hypothetical situations have no bearing on foreign policy in the real world. Constructs that appear sound in theory have no basis in reality. There is no evidence that these well-defined sanctions would achieve foreign policy objectives, or that they would give the people their due, or that they would protect the rights of the people. C2: I concur that corrupt leaders are responsible for the punishment, not the people. The fact remains that it is the people, not their leaders, who are being punished. This is a flagrant violation of justice and their rights. I stated that because the people suffer as a result of sanctions, though they are not at fault (a fact with which my opponent concurred), they are collateral damage. The imposition of sanctions is thus at odds with my value criterion. C3: An ideological benefit is unimportant in the context of this debate. The resolution specifically addresses the imposition of sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives. A sanction that serves a purely ideological benefit—one of perceived moral superiority or the like—has no impact upon our rights. It does not give us what we are due—it does not make our lives any safer, nor does it make the lives of those living in offending countries any freer. Conclusion: I have shown that economic sanctions are unsuccessful at achieving foreign policy objectives, and that their use fails to protect natural rights or justice. In addition, the use of sanctions violates my value criterion of a lack of collateral damage in that sanctions cause harm to those who are not at fault for the policies in question. For these reasons, I reaffirm that economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I thank my opponent for his constructive debate and the readers for their interest and comments. I now present the issue to the readers for voting. Thank you.