Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

I will first present my case, then address my opponent's. Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I negate the stated resolution and intend to show that a wholesale dismissal of the use of economic sanctions in the achievement of foreign policy objectives is shortsighted and unnecessary. While economic sanctions are not the only instrument by which foreign policy objectives may be achieved (and certainly should not be used as such), they ought to remain available as an option in regards to foreign policy. I accept my opponent's definitions of economic sanctions and foreign policy. I reject my opponent's definition of "objective. " While foreign policy does encompass military interests, it is limiting to simply discuss the impact of economic sanctions upon military targets. Indeed, foreign policy objectives may also include the protection of economic interests, human rights, and national security. I instead offer the Random House definition: Objective: something one's efforts are intended to attain or accomplish I would also like to present the following definitions. Ought: to be bound in duty (Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary) Achieve: to bring to a successful end; carry through; accomplish (Random House) I believe that this is Merriam-Webster's definition of the verb "justify. " I would ask for some clarification as to whether my opponent intends the defined word to be "justify," "justified," or if he equates justice with something that has been proven or shown "to be just right or reasonable. " Furthermore, according to the provided definition, whatever its application may be, my opponent shall have the burden of proof in this debate. My Case: Value: Government legitimacy. Government legitimacy is the means by which a government fulfills its responsibility to those who it governs. Those responsibilities include the preservation of natural rights—life, liberty, and property. Criterion: Natural rights—is the government doing what needs to be done to ensure these aforementioned rights? Contention 1: Well-planned and designed economic sanctions with clearly defined objectives offer a more targeted and less costly alternative to war and have a greater impact than diplomatic talks alone. A. North Korea Diplomatic talks with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il over that country's development of nuclear weapons had been stalled for eighteen months when, in 2007, US officials froze select Banco Delta Asia accounts in Macao. This selective blocking of financial transactions brought North Korea back to the negotiating table. This is but a small step towards a nonproliferation agreement, but the restarting of talks caused by the narrow application of economic sanctions marks an improvement over the previous stalemate. The US government therefore satisfies the value of government legitimacy in that it used economic sanctions as a means to restart talks that would assure the safety of its citizens. B. Iran In February of 2007, the US Government enacted a trade ban against three Iranian companies known to be direct suppliers of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, a government agency known to be building weapons of mass destruction—that is, a nuclear bomb. Such an action resulted in no deaths on either side, but effectively blocked major sources of materials for Iran's nuclear energy program. By denying Iran the resources it needs to build a WMD, the US renders its citizens and the citizens of other nations safer from the threat of a nuclear bomb. Contention 2: Economic sanctions used specifically or in conjunction with other strategies are an effective way of achieving foreign policy objectives. A. South Africa Multilateral sanctions, along with the threat of military action and increased instability within South Africa led to the fall of apartheid. While sources dispute the exact role that sanctions played in the end of apartheid, they were successfully used to end a system that violated natural rights and led to the creation of a government that would uphold those rights. My Opponent's Case: Value: I will assume something resembling the Socratic version of justice for this rebuttal; this may change pending clarification (see above). Socrates defines justice as giving each person what is due to him or her. In the context of modern society, one may assume that each individual is owed his/her natural rights—those of life, liberty, and property. My opponent attacks economic sanctions, but fails to provide any other alternatives. A nation may use diplomatic talks to convince other nations to comply with its demands. This is an attempt to achieve a foreign policy objective in a way that causes minimal harm to the nations involved, and are therefore a preferred method for nations. However, recent events (Iran) indicate that diplomatic negotiations alone are not necessarily effective in achieving these objectives, therefore violating my opponent's value of justice. If talks are not effective, the quality of life is not improved and further fails to satisfy the criterion. A nation may choose to take military action against nations who oppose them. How does this satisfy justice? How does the murder of civilians protect their right to life or give to them what is their due? It does not. My opponent states that "the quality of life is hoped to be increased by preventing the downgrade of it by economic sanctions. " A lack of failure is not a success; likewise, preventing a downgrade of the quality of life is not equal to an increase in the quality of life. My opponent, as previously stated, has not presented an alternative to economic sanctions. A failure to act is not an option—if there is a need for sanctions in the first place, a failure to act will lead to a decrease in the quality of life in either the imposing or offending countries. C1 and C2: The gist of these two contentions is that economic sanctions should not be used because they unjustly cause harm to their recipients, and I will therefore treat them as one contention. The people of an offending country may suffer as a result of economic sanctions—that is an acknowledged consequence of their use. I ask my opponent: would it be preferable to allow the continuation of the violation of natural rights by failing to act--in essence, complicity--or would it be morally justified to take action to rectify the issue, although doing so might result in harm? In the case of Iraq, economic sanctions were applied too broadly with too little opportunity for humanitarian intervention. As per my first contention, well-defined and specifically targeted sanctions, like those used on Iran and North Korea, would be an effective method of expressing international displeasure at Iraq' invasion of Kuwait. Likewise, the imposed sanctions in Burundi were far too blunt, with a conceded disproportionate impact upon the poor and too small an effect to justify their use. Nevertheless, the poor performance of concededly ill-designed sanctions does not warrant a wholesale dismissal of their use. As I have shown, smart usage of sanctions can work. (. http://www.latimes.com...) (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) (. http://www.africa.upenn.edu...) I now stand for cross examination and any clarifications, followed by my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.