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

Also, please note that sources will be posted in the comments because of character limits. I affirm that as resolved, economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Definitions: Economic sanctions: restrictions upon international trade and finance that one country imposes on another for political reasons (A) Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation (Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary) Achieve: to bring to a successful end; carry through; accomplish (Random House) Foreign policy: a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives (American Heritage Dictionary) Objectives: something that one's efforts are intended to attain or accomplish (RH) Collateral damage: unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action (AHD) Observation: Economic sanctions may be useful in purely economic disputes. However, in non-economic disputes of foreign policy (e. g. in cases of human rights abuses), I intend to prove that economic sanctions are ineffective and unwarranted. Value: Justice, or giving each his/her due. Justice is the basis of any moral, social, or political framework, and applies to all human interactions and is therefore the fundamental value in this debate. Criteria: government legitimacy—that is, fulfilling the role of government to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those under its jurisdiction (in this case, the protection of the people and the promotion of their welfare), which is what is due to the people (Locke); avoiding collateral damage (see definition). Contention 1: Economic sanctions are ineffective at achieving foreign policy objectives. A. "[T]he history of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy reveals that they have rarely achieved success. Just look at the long-time failed American economic sanctions against Cuba, in place since 1960, shortly after Fidel Castro took power. (1)" The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act states that its purpose is "to maintain sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights (2). " However, "[t]he embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free (3). " It is rather evident that this sanction has failed to achieve its stated objective. B. "Currently, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya are on the receiving end of U. S. economic sanctions (4). " However, "[t]he only U. S. economic sanction that enjoys international backing is the one against Iraq, which means that the other similarly black-marked countries can easily circumvent U. S. embargoes by purchasing goods and finding investors elsewhere (4). " For example, "in response to the US sanctions imposed with the goal of destabilizing Castro's regime, Soviet Russia increased its trade ties and provided aid to the Cuban communist regime to undermine the unilateral US sanctions. (9). " C. The European Union ended its preferential tariff for Myanmar to prevent the ruling junta from ignoring the results of a recent election and placing a popular candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. Despite this action, the election results were thrown out, and Suu Kyi remains under house arrest today (5). " Because economic sanctions fail to consistently and effectively achieve foreign policy objectives, they undermine governmental legitimacy by failing to significantly impact the well being of the people, nor to increase their security or potential for prosperity. They therefore fail to satisfy the value of justice. C 2: The groups most greatly affected by economic sanctions—the people—in many cases have no connection to the foreign policy in question. A. In 1990, as a response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait, the UN imposed comprehensive sanctions on the country. "Sanctions…transformed a country that in the 1980's was the envy of the developing world in terms of investments in health, education and physical infrastructure into a place where everyone (except the half-million or so members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and their families and cronies) was dependent on United Nations food aid, where infant mortality rates had skyrocketed, educational outcomes had collapsed and diseases that had disappeared were reappearing, sometimes at epidemic levels. (6). " B. A UNICEF report on infant mortality shows that roughly 500,000 children that could have been expected to live (at least) until their fifth birthdays died as a result of these sanctions because of lack of access to medicines or food (among other items) that had previously been imported. As tactically sound as trade restrictions on wayward nations may seem, they do not justify the collateral damage done. C. In the case of Iran, which has continued its nuclear development despite the opposition of the international community, "In order for sanctions to be truly effective, they must include measures that focus pressure on the ruling clique and the Revolutionary Guard. The Guards have become one of the largest business interests in the country, involved in all layers and sectors of the economy…sanctions that simply make the lives of the average Iranian more difficult will once again fail to push the government to reconsider its position on the nuclear issue. (7)" D. Also, many regimes under threat of international sanction are willing to pass on the economic burdens of sanctions to the people, while the policymakers remain relatively unaffected (12). By damaging a nation's economy, we do harm to the people, not to those who are actually responsible for actions or policies that the sanction-imposing nation feels are flawed. This is a violation of the value of justice—giving people their due—as those affected in these cases cannot be held responsible for the actions of their government (in cases where power is not derived from the consent of the governed). C 3: The use of economic sanctions harms the economic interests of the nation imposing them without a significant benefit to the nation imposing them. Furthermore, the imposition of sanctions strains ties between the sanction-imposing nations and its allies that do not support the sanction. A. "[S]anctions have cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual sales overseas and caused long-term damage to U. S. companies--lost market share and reputations abroad as unreliable suppliers. (3)" B. "[I]n. .. Washington, sanctions have a direct cost for local businesses and their employees. 8). " In Washington, wheat and peas grown for export to Iran and Cuba cannot be sold, nor can Boeing sell its planes to other countries because the direct or indirect results of sanctions (8). C. The US sanctions on Cuba have been condemned yearly since 1992 by the United Nations general assembly as a violation of international law. Such condemnations cause tensions between the US and its allies—the European Union and Mexico, for example (10, 11). " The lack of benefits to the nation and the people of the nation imposing the sanctions, as well as the damage done to alliances of said country, undermine government legitimacy and thus do not satisfy the value of justice. In summary, I have shown that economic sanctions are ineffective at reaching their established objectives. In addition, they often fail to affect their intended target, and unjustly affect the innocent. Finally, economic sanctions cause harm to the nations who impose them. All of these factors contradict the value of this round, justice, rendering sanctions objectionable and unjust. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.