Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

"Man is the measure of all things" - Protagoras -------------------- CON Position (rebuilt) -------------------- C1: The argument regarding the businessman versus the nation was made very clear in my last post. The businessmen have a central governing figure, thus there is no hint of anarchy. For the businessman to do whatever is in his self-interest would be an unethical practice. However, nations do not have a central authority, thus they are forced to act in self-defense or in a manner than best protects themselves and their constituents. Merely throwing these two together as "very analogous" is a huge misrepresentation. My opponent continues by saying, "he says that a nation has an obligation to protect itself. I agree with that.". The only thing that's different in our analysis is how we interpret what it means for a state to have an obligation to protect itself. My opponent says that the sanctions are ineffective but remember what I said in earlier posts: 1st: My evidence indicates that even if the sanctions aren't always effective, it is worth it for the states to implement a low-cost measure to save lives on their side. The alternative is worse. 2nd: No option – including the use of economic sanctions – ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. In short, there is nothing that governments ought not to do and no tool they ought not to use because of the idea of realism (she agrees with the part of realism that states ought to act to defend themselves). 3rd: My opponent's evidence relies on whether or not the explicit goal was achieved, however, the explicit goal may not be the actual one nor the only one. Norrin M. Ripsman writes, "[P]ublicly stated objectives may amount to no more than a smokescreen concealing the true purposes of sanctions. In his re-examination of British sanctions against Rhodesia, for example, Rowe (1999a, pp. 254-287) indicates that British leaders had not in fact desired to topple Ian Smith's regime with their oil embargo. Instead, they had merely wanted to send a signal of resolve to the African members of the British Commonwealth that would not be so strong as to invite retaliation from South Africa."(cited earlier). 4th: My opponent contends that I am trying to "maximize my own power", this is absolutely true, and this has been defended as a just action. I have already reiterated the warrants for why realism is preferable in my last post. Realism means that states ought to act in their self-interest. If a nation believes genocide is bad, then it is ok for that nation to impose an economic sanction on nations that are committing genocide. Simple. C2:My opponent states that her Iraq evidence displays how economic sanctions do not help hegemony because I kill citizens. This argument is wrong on two levels: 1st: There's no connection between people dying and hegemony. Hegemony merely means that a nation will remain an international "super-power". I.E. If the nation continually expresses its views (such as anti-genocide or anti-proliferation), then said nation will continue to be a world super-power. Economic sanctions are key to achieving this end and it has worked in the past (ref. to Ripsman). 2nd: My opponent then claims that policies ought not be valued over morality and that I "apparently agree" with this point since I dropped it. However this is certainly not the case. I have three warrants for my interpretation of ought/morality that I listed in my last post. (ref. to last post: CON position: lines 4-15). These three points remain unanswered. Essentially, one objective set of morality cannot be consistently applied by a nation. Her way of interpreting policy-actions is not feasible. Additionally, if we can agree that genocide is generally an immoral actions, economic sanctions intend on spreading the notion that genocide is bad. Without an outward opposition against genocide, the nation is not "upholding its morals". -------------------- PRO's case -------------------- V: Extend my responses to her value. We are evaluating this debate through the lens of realism, not her notion of justice. Criterion: Her one example still doesn't indicate why we ought to get rid of economic sanctions. Nations that have lost a war do not deem war as ineffective, thus no longer fight. We do not give up on diplomacy just because it has failed multiple times. The point is that we ought to be able to use these sanctions when we deem them as a necessary alternative to war. Furthermore, my criterion has been implicitly accepted by my opponent because she still does not give you an alternative theory to evaluate the round. Hence, my criterion regarding the exercise of realism is best for this debate. C1:No news points were presented here other than efficiency which has been dealt with earlier in this debate. I will not be redundant. C2: Morality has been dealt with as well (ref. to CON case). It is thus because I refuse to: allow genocide to occur, allow the removal of a policy that can be effective, and deny the nation's authority to do whatever it takes to spread its ideals and protect itself, I urge a negative ballot. Thanks for this opportunity, - Protagoras of Abdera Sources: No new sources were presented.