economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

I agree with my opponent's definitions and observations. AV: Humanitarianism My opponent claims that peace is the top priority of governments and by using humanitarianism, you can achieve peace.Cuba, which is run by the Castro Regime, has been regarded by the Int'lCommunity as a nation that is radical when making decisions- ruled by a tyrant, the Cuban Government is easily infiltrated, and in short corrupt.The Cuban Government has no interest in peace- their only interest is their own benefit.Just because many governments prioritize peace, does not mean all governments do the same.Furthermore humanitarian efforts are hindered by affirming the resolution because by not imposing economic sanctions how do we achieve Foreign Policy Objectives (FPOs) that help the humanitarian efforts on foreign soil? When you affirm the resolution, you take out the option of using Economic Sanctions as a way to achieve that, so what are we left with to achieve FPOs? Warfare? Inaction? Diplomacy? All of these options hinder humanitarian efforts and cause a great deal of damage.Warfare of course results in bloodshed... I'm sorry, but have you ever heard of a humane war? AVC:Free Trade- I agree, that free trade does promote the economy, however, imposing economic sanctions also have the ability to achieve the same thing.When a nation imposes a sanc, the sanctioned country thus is hard pressed to turn to other nations in the intl community to seek new allies or new nations to trade with.Ec Sancs increase independence within the nation that is sanctioned- they make them look at their resources, and ask themselves what they have to offer the rest of the world thus promoting new international relationships. As far as free trade tying into creating stability, which translates into a government who values wellfare, I fail to see this link.Many times a nation may have a stable economy, but might not value or increase wellfare efforts.I fail to see how by not imposing ec sancs how wellfare is preserved?Sancs are easy remedies to turn to in order to find a solvency that is able to protect the intl community from potential harm, to increase &prevent the hindering of humanitarian efforts in the imposed nation and to ultimately lay a foundation where the wellfare of a nation can prosper.How do sanctions decrease wellfare Because free trade is limited? Well in some instances, free trade is not applicable.Free trade may be relevant to many industrialized nations, but as far as third world countries who lack the necessities to survive in a global economy, free trade is not apparent, nor does it increase democracy, wellfare, or stability. An aside- as my opponent knows democracy is not the only sort of government that is present in the world today, so why would a nation like Angola, want to participate in free trade which hinders their form of Gov't and instead, pushes the idea of democracy onto them? the ENTIRE point of an ecc sanc is to put the sanctioned nation at a disadvantage.Sanctions are intended as ec punishments which restrict the sanctioned nation's economy.That's what a sanc is designed to do. AC1-Ec sancs weaken the a country's economy especially the one issuing a sanc. sancs are designed to weaken the sanctioned nation's economy- that's the whole point, and as far as weakening the sending nation's economy, that is the price that they must be willing to pay.I mean afterall, is their a price to human life?W/out sanctions, civillians in the sanctioned nation, will continue to suffer & die, & over time, the intl community could also experience the same thing.Human wellfare is weakened by not imposing economic sanctions especially when needed rather than by imposing sanctions & suffering a .1% annual decrease in revenue. AC2-Ec sancs are unjustified in the way a country cuts trade because the opposing party doesn't agree to their terms.Sancs are imposed when they have a reason.My opponent says that the reason why sancs are imposed and happen to be unjust is because the sanctioned nation disagrees with the sanctioning nation.I feel a sanc that is imposed because of that sole reason would be an unsuccessful sanc but sancs that are imposed to increase humanitarian efforts to end a corrupt regime to change a F.P. for the good of the INT'L community & of the citizens of the sanctioned nation are all legitimate reasons to impose sanctions.My opp uses the example of the Cold War with Russia & the US disagreeing about communism & democracy & how the parties involved almost evolved into groups like the Taliban.I fail to see the relevance to the debate @hand.Free trade rather than being the solution in this instance was the problem.It did not increase wellfare it decreased it & ec sancs often have the opposite effect.Ec Sancs are the pacifist approach to achieving FPOs rather than turn to war which in short leads to turmoil, & puts the economy in a deterring situation when it shouldn't be. AC3-Ec sancs destroys the right of free trade between powerful countries such as China & US. I agree that the US & China are powerful.In someways though ec sancs are used as checks & balances when regarding two powerful nations like China & the US.I see why my opponent uses these examples-if the US was sanctioned by China not only would the US be unable to obtain goods from China but vice versa.This however would not be the end of the world.They have other allies.When imposing a sanc the nations involved know that free trade is no longer an option when dealing with the other nation- but again, that's the whole point of a sanction- Free trade is not destroyed because of a sanction, its simply put on hold. AC4-Ec sancs will cause grudges and degrade soft power and ultimately human welfare.A grudge won't get the sanctioned nation far.Over time, these grudges will be diminished, and normalized relations will be reached.My opponent says more harm than good will be the byproduct, however, even though that's what it may seem like at first doesn't mean that's how it would play out.Human wellfare would be jeopardized when sanctions aren't imposed.If a sanction is imposed, the people who hold the grudge would be the gov't of the sanctioned country- the people, the civillians, would over all, benefit from the sanc, thus putting them at an advantage to end the oppression from their tyranical gov't.Sancs in the long run cause more good than they do harm and grudges will diminish if they are held because over time the sanctioned nation will realize that the grudge is more detrimental to them, than it is to the sanctioning nation. My value for this round is n'tl security.The gov't is obliged to take action in this debate.A government always looks to its own security as the paramount value albeit, we should as well.Also, national security is needed for nations to exist, and without nations, we goback to the lawless state of nature without rights protection. VC: Realism.-Realism is the idea that there are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must be ever aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the prblms that arise. C1:Ec sancs are effective both by themselves, and w/additional aid (ie: diplomacy, and other building blocks) and they can be used for the betterment of the sanctioned nation. Sanctions in Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Libya, Angola, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Russia and Poland have succeeded. sanc's in angola proved to be effective regarding the lockerbie bombing.they settled @ 2.7bill $'s, and promised to stop the making of nuc. weapons, relations normalized, and angola gained a seat on the UN security council. the wellfare of the angolan society was bettered and nt'l security achieved. C2: alternatives to ec sancs are ineffective, immoral, & unjust. inaction, warfare, and diplomacy fail or do not preserve wellfare/ntlsecurity. inaction is immoral- warfare- unjust, and diplomacy- too weak