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

I stand in negation of resolved: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I would like to begin with a few counter-definitions. I accept Adam Winkler's definition of economic sanctions, that they are limitations on trade or access to markets enacted to encourage a target nation to behave in a way preferred by the sanctioning nations. I disagree, however, that the definitive characteristic of economic sanctions is intent to cause economic harm to the state to make life intolerable to the citizens of a targeted state. Many economic sanctions are used strictly to stop a certain nation from gaining a resource, such as enriched uranium. I also disagree that ought implies a moral imperative. In the sense of the resolution, the agent of action is a government. Ought, in the sense of what a government ought to do, almost always refers to what "should" be done, or what is most beneficial. Furthermore, moral imperatives are not objective facts and cannot be debated. In other words, morals are largely subjective and we will always disagree on what is moral and what isn't. Also, my opponent defines morality as the general execution of what is right as compared to what is wrong. This definition is too vague to debate. What is right? What is wrong? Who decides? For this reason, and for the sake of debate, we must look at ought as what is most beneficial. I would also like to provide a few observations. O1) The resolution does not specify the exact agent of action. We must infer that the agent of action is government, because government is the only entity that possesses the capability to impose economic sanctions. Furthermore, the size of government is not specified. Economic Sanctions can be unilaterally or multilaterally imposed. O2) The affirmative must prove that economic sanctions are always an "ought not" action. In other words, the affirmative must prove that something within economic sanctions makes them inherently an action that ought not be done. On the other hand, negative must prove the resolution untrue, or that economic sanctions are not inherently an action that ought not be done. Let me clarify: the world is not divided into "yes" and "no", but "yes" and "not yes". There are somethings that fall neither into "yes" or "no". Therefore, the absence of "yes" is not "no", but everything that is not "yes". So I do not have the burden to prove the resolution is inherently false, just that it is not inherently true. My value for this round is national security. Again, the agent of action for this debate is a government. A government always looks to its own security as the paramount value, therefore, we should as well. Furthermore, national security is needed for nations to exist, and without nations, we revert back to the lawless state of nature without rights protection. This is an objective value, morality isn't. My criterion for this round is a cost-benefit analysis. We must measure the benefits and harms of an action and make our decision from our conclusions. A CBA is needed for national security. Without making decisions based on the benefits and costs, governments would run the nation into ruin and no national security would exist. Also, a CBA is more quantifiable than respecting human life. One can clearly see what is beneficial, however, there is no clear line on what respects human life and what doesn't. Would killing an enemy combatant with the goal of protecting the lives of your family disrespect human life? What if you let an enemy combatant live and he kills your family, is that disrespecting human life? Clearly, a CBA can be used to evaluate the round, while respecting human life cannot. I will provide my own contentions, and then attack my opponents contentions. C1-) Economic Sanctions ought be done to stop the trade of weapons. a) Direct sanctions on weapons If a nation's foreign policy objective includes stopping another country from attaining nuclear weapons, the smartest course of action may be an economic sanction on enriched uranium. If the major nuclear-capable countries of the world were to impose multilateral sanctions on sole country, it would become almost impossible for the country to attain enriched-uranium. At the very least, it would take much longer for the country to attain the resource. A direct sanction on enriched-uranium will not cost the sanctioning country money, and it will not unfairly hurt the citizens of the sanctioned country. The sanctioning countries must have a wide enough monopoly on the dangerous resource for this plan to work. When such a situation does exist, direct economic sanctions should be imposed. b) Indirect sanctions to stop attaining of weapons A nation can use sanctions on other resources in the economy to encourage the sanctioned country to not attain weapons. Newsweek on November 29, 2008 gives an example of smart sanctions. "Hitting the economy more directly would force the mullahs to make a choice. Iran has profound economic vulnerabilities: it imports 43 percent of its gas. Its oil and natural-gas industries—the government's key source of revenue, which it uses to buy off its population—desperately require new investment and technology. Smart sanctions would force Iran's leaders to see the high costs of not changing their behavior." Again, a monopoly on a valuable resource is needed from some sanctions to work. In the case of Iran, smart sanctions on scarce resources would encourage the government to abandon pursuit of enriched uranium. Now to attack my opponent's case C1+) My opponent argues that sanctions harm the citizens, thus using them as a means to achieve a greater end. He uses Kant to say that humans should never be used as a means to achieve another end. The direct economic sanctions that I mentioned in my first contention sub-point A would not harm the citizens and use their suffering as a means to a greater end. If a country places sanctions on a single product, in this case a weapon or component of a weapon, how can the lack of a weapon hurt the citizens? Also, I would like to reiterate that this debate is not a moral debate but a practical debate. Just War theorists would claim that Kant is wrong (he is just a person, after all), and that it IS moral to hurt citizens to stop a larger war with more casualties. Affirmative would, obviously, disagree with the moral of Just War theorists. For this reason, we cannot argue that hurting citizens is immoral because many people would disagree with this claim. Unless my opponent can prove that the suffering of some citizens to stop a wide and more deadly war is always moral to everyone, it should not be accepted as an argument for the round. C2A+) My opponent argues that sanctions further impoverish the resistance forces of some countries. We must remember that not all sanctions are smart. I would agree that stopping the trade of food to impoverished countries is a bad idea. Such as sanction would not have more benefits than harms and would not pass my own CBA criterion. That sanction ought not be used. However, a sanction against weapons going to the hostile government ought to be used. Also, sanctions could be put into place that allowed humanitarian aid from the UN or other countries. In most cases, the sanctioned government does not allow the humanitarian aid to pass into the country. For many years, the Sudanese government did not allow the UN to provide humanitarian aid to the region of Darfur. Do we blame the UN or Sudan? C2B+) My opponent stresses that economic sanctions for political reasons will unfairly hurt citizens of the sanctioned country. I agree with my opponent that the sanctions on Cuba ought not be in effect. They have yielded little benefit at a higher cost. They fail to meet my CBA criterion. However, I did not and do not have the burden to prove that every economic sanction in history was beneficial.