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

I will be going through the negative case, through the affirmative case, and then on to points of crystallization. In Her case she states, "A nation is only concerned for its people, not others". However in an article written by David Griswold for the Cato institute, he says that the Economic sanctions are put in place not only to help eradicate the government that is currently in place but also to protect the citizens of the country from the government. Therefore we are concerned for other people and her observation II falls. In her contention I she states that 500,000 children have died as a result of the economic sanctions. She even goes so far as to tell you that warfare causes more deaths than economic sanctions themselves. I have provided non-violent alternative to the economic sanctions. Therefore I have provided reasonable doubt within her contention I and it falls. In her Contention II sub point A she addresses the idea of "threats of aggression" and "breeches of peace" being the reason as to why we should use economic sanctions. But tell me this, when is the last time Cuba has threatened us or breeched our peace? Economic sanctions themselves are nothing but a political tool to look powerful amongst all the other countries. If we look to David Griswold's article he gives examples of much more openly threatening countries that should have sanctions but because of their standing with the United States, they do not receive these sanctions. One example he gives is china. China is having serious inner turmoil that can and will threaten the United States. However, because China is currently third in the world for total exports and imports, China does not receive the sanction because China is such a large part of our economy. Because economic sanctions have taken a turn to the political side, you can no longer trust them to be a reliable source. In her sub point B for contention II she states "Why sit on our thumbs and wait for chaos?". Well you see, we already have. Look to Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine national interest that both Cuba and China combined. Venezuela has also spent thousands of dollars to support any and all ant-American movements. So in her sub point B she wants to use the economic sanctions as a tool to prevent things from happening; however, what do you do once these things have already happen, like in Venezuela? I Have provided reasonable doubt in both of her sub points in Contention II and I have also provided doubt in her contention I. Moving on to the affirmative case. She states that my value will victimize the poor. However, economic sanctions are already doing just that. If we look to David Griswold's article he states that Cuba has turned into one of the poorest nations in Latin America and that "…Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security.". She also goes on to state that my value is not an alternative to the sanctions: however, I must then question how is it not? My value is that of free trade. The resolution itself is that of one based on economics so by having a value that is also based on economics you can see similarities between both. My value is an amazing alternative, not only does it relate to the resolution but it is also a much more peaceful alternative than my opponents alternative which is warfare. Instead of killing men and women in warfare we will merely be trading with the world. She also goes on to criticize my criterion saying that it does not relate to the stated resolution. However, as I previously stated, my criterion is also of economic background. My criterion is to uphold my value, and my criterion does just that. My value is free trade and it is upheld by Adam Smith's book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". To my Contention I she is trying to make it seem like Cuba is still a threat to the United States. However, this is not true. In Daniel Griswold's article he directly states that "In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo." Therefore we can look to the past and how the embargo affected Cuba like I did in my case; however, we cannot still say that Cuba itself still posses a threat. She also goes on to say that it is a government's duty to protect its people from threats. However, to what extent do we protect our people? Do we lets say, infringe on the rights of citizens of a foreign country because they pose some form of threat? No. The government can protect its people, but once it starts to infringe on the rights of other citizens it is immoral and wrong. In my sub point B she states that the cold war cost $13.1 trillion. This evidence supports my value as an alternative. Who knows just how much warfare will cost in this decade; however, free trade is as it says, free. Why spend exponential amounts of money when I have provided a cheaper, less violent, and clearly as effective alternative to economic sanctions? In my contention II sub point A I have given examples of how economic sanctions do not achieve foreign policy objectives, you can find them in my case. However as she goes on she attempts to generalize foreign policy objectives, and this generalization does not go unnoticed. We cannot just lump foreign policy objectives together because each one is individual to its own situation. In my contention III sub point B she is giving Cuba much more credit than they deserve. As stated earlier in my rebuttal Cuba is not the power they used to be. She failed to hit on my contention II and sub-point B and contention III sub-point A. Therefore she must agree with all of those points and I have provided reasonable doubt within her case and have managed to solidify and back up my arguments, which she attempted to attack. On to points of crystallization: My value is clearly superior to hers. Her value is national security while mine is free trade. Not only does her value focus on domestic issues, it just protects us. Whereas my value focuses on worldly issues, is an alternative, and can help stabilize our economy. My value provides the most benefits and will affect everyone around the world. My criterion is also clearly superior to hers. Her criterion is government legitimacy whereas mine is Adam Smith's book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". My criterion is superior in only one major way. Like any good criterion, my criterion upholds my value: which just happens to be the basic function of a criterion.