Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

I negate; I offer the following definition: Economic Sanctions, from the Heritage Foundation: "any restriction imposed by one country (the sender) on international commerce with another country (the target) in order to persuade the target country's government to change a policy." Kofi Annan expands this definition to include "targeted sanctions which prevent the travel, or freeze the foreign bank accounts, of individuals or classes of individuals." It is important to prefer this definition because it provides the most up-to-date view as to what sanctions are. The aff's definition is very much the 20th century model of the sanction, and I should not be bound to debate the policies of the past when we are debating what ought to happen in the future. My value is Governmental Legitimacy. The resolution ultimately poses a question about state actors and their duty within the context of economic sanctions. Because a state actor must always act legitimately or reap physical and moral harm, this is the best value for this round. The criterion will be Preservation of Human Life, because as Dr. Robert Britt writes: "A nation is only legitimate insofar as it recognizes the ultimate value of the human life. When faced with decisions in which a government must act and either choice can lead to the loss of human life, a government ought act to halt genocide and autocratic regime's stranglehold on populations, as loss of life in the act of freedom is ultimately valued more than that sacrificed through tacit consent" C1: Sanctions Succeed Economic sanctions are a remarkable took when wielded properly. Governments constantly refine them to become more streamlined and effective. The latest wave of smart sanctions exemplifies such an advance. Salim al-Sanat Governor of the Bank of Indonesia provides an example, "The international community's sanction on banks that allow terrorist accounts forced other banks to take action to ensure that the accounts of terrorists were frozen and funds relocated to be inaccessible. Before the use of sanctions many banks were reluctant to freeze such accounts, but sanction[s] convinced [them] to [freeze] terror groups out of 900 million dollars in the Bank of Indonesia alone." This analysis is furthered by empirical data. After applying 115 different sanction policies through a rigorous statistical calculation, Shagabutdinova and Berejikian (07) conlude that: "[Smart] sanctions increase the probability of the best outcome by 23 percent for policy result. Similarly pure sanctions reduce the probability of the worst outcome for concession by 29 percent result."ï¿½ï¿½ Their data further shows that these targeted sanctions have a failure rate of only 13%. C2: Removing Sanctions Leaves the Only Recourse as War Lauren et al. describe the system of international relations on three levels: negotiations, coercive diplomacy, and military action. A country's first recourse is negotiation. However, it is often the case in crisis situations that negotiations fail because of the incompatibility of viewpoints. When such events transpire, a country has two choices: place a sanction, or escalate to troop movement and warfare. The use of sanctions only became prominent after WWII because of the multilateral nature of the global economy. Sanctions provided the world with an alternative methodology with which to pursue peace, and we finally moved beyond a black and white world of negotiations versus warfare. At the point that we cannot sanction, countries have two choices: send a strongly worded letter and watch atrocities unfold, or engage in full-out warfare. Forced warfare is an incredibly blunt tool that relies on one country's ability to physically bludgeon another into submission. Both sides suffer great casualties, and one only has to look to history to see the immense human and financial cost of warfare. Tacit consent to atrocities leads to just as destructive outcomes. Joseph Semelin writes "large-scale massacres cannot occur without genocidal states benefiting from the passiveness, of other states. Lack of intervention at the international level that leaves the way free for genocidal operators. When public opinion commits itself implicitly to the process of violence then the descent into massacre increases in probability. This can only be compensated for by the external intervention of an international public opinion." --- Regarding the affirmative case, we see that all the offense is related to the economic sanctions of the past, and I will agree that sanctions have failed before. But we must remember that there is no single diplomatic tool that has a 100% success rate. In fact, by the aff arguments, we ought not go to war due to the human cost, leaving the only tool as negotiation! Our values are fairly similar; a legitimate government is just, and justice creates a legitimate government. Thus, we should be looking at who impacts through the criterion of preservation of life more effectively Let's take a moment and cross-apply my opponent's arguments historically. Before the 16th century, war was a horrible method of achieving objectives - it led to the huge massacre of civilians and mass lootings, stripping a country of its wealth. It was really only in the 16th century, when soldiers took the fighting out of the towns and cities and into neighboring fields, and accepted the difference between military and civilians that things became more humane. Similarly, diplomacy was a complete failure until the 1815 Congress of Vienna, when nations finally understood the principle of compromise. Sanctions have been around for less than a century, and are evolving at a much faster rate than either diplomacy or warfare - it would be a mistake for us to discard them. You can look to my 2nd contention to see that without sanctions in the diplomatic toolbox, we can either stand by and let atrocities occur or go to war and harm civilians. When you affirm, you guarantee an increase in the number of innocent deaths by tying government hands. You can turn the affirmative first contention - I can target governments and individuals with smart sanctions, and I will elaborate in the second rebuttal. Sanctions that cause increases in mortality were those placed on foods and medicines - mistakes the Neg does not have to repeat. Sure, old sanctions target the entire nation, but criticizing sanctions based on old sanctions is like criticizing medicine based on bleeding done in the 1700s. Diplomacy is a wonderful tool and ought to be the first choice, but again, I can list hundreds of situations in which it has not worked. A choice few: Iraq, North Korea, the Khmer Rogue, and WWII. The list is even longer than the sanctions which have not succeeded. The fact is, diplomacy fails when countries are not open to making compromises. Sanctions can soften up a dictatorial regime or terrorist organizations to the point that diplomacy can work. You can apply his analysis "we need alternatives...that [preserve life] and...target elites" to strengthen the above turn - sanctions meet this specific criterion of saving lives and targeting elites. The Aff cites Cuba and Iraq as examples of failed sanctions, and I agree that sanctions did not achieve their objectives there. However, I am not bound to advocate that countries always use sanctions in every case, but that they retain the ability to use them. The third contention is again dealing with comprehensive sanctions. This is not true of modern sanctions however. By freezing bank accounts and stopping the trade of luxury goods like iPods and sports cars, they can effectively hit the elites. Finally, the 5% rate that the Affirmative offers is flawed - I unfortunately cannot cite the card this round due to space, but can post it in the comments section if desired.