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

I negate today's resolution: "Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives." By negating today's resolution, I support a practice that is instrumental in the prevention of widespread violations of international law and human rights. Morality is the value to be considered in today's debate. Morality is the foundation on which all of society is built. Because we are judging the practical and moral implications of sanctions, we ought to use consequentialism as the value criterion in today's debate. Using the value criterion of consequentialism, I will show that the outcomes produced by sanctions make them moral. For clarity I would like to present the following definitions: Morality is defined by Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "a code of conduct put forth by society." As sanctions involve many different nations, the standard of morality to be used in this case would be of an established international entity such as the United Nations. Consequentialism is defined as "the view that the moral rightness of an act depends on the foreseeable consequences." Contention I: Sanctions prevent mass violations of international law and human rights. Subpoint A: Libya stopped terrorism and weapons programs as a result of UN sanctions. According to Orde Kittrie, professor of law, discussing THE IRAN SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT OF 2009 on March 12, "UN Security Council sanctions also induced Libya's government, a regime that had become synonymous with international terrorism, to forsake terrorism and relinquish its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Libya ceased its support for terrorism following the Security Council's imposition on it of strong sanctions in 1992 and 1993 in exchange for removal of the Security Council sanctions." Subpoint B: Sanctions prevent widespread violations of human rights under suppressive regimes. The sanctions Guatemala was threatened with led to the removal of President Jorge Serrano, who, according to Ana Arana of the Sun Sentinel on June 27, 1993, "dissolved [the Guatemalan] Congress and announced he would rule by decree. President Clinton and the European Economic Community threatened to impose economic sanctions. The implications were ominous for Guatemala`s economy...A dozen or so businessmen gathered in the headquarters of CACIF, the Confederation of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations forced Serrano to resign within days." Thus a leader intent on turning Guatemala into a dictatorship was stopped by sanctions. Contention II: The cost of not sanctioning in many cases is far greater than the cost of sanctioning. Subpoint A: Sanctions are needed to stop staunch enemies from acquiring weapons harmful to world peace. According to Kittrie in the same article, "The international community has learned in recent years that strong sanctions can stop both illicit nuclear weapons programs and terrorism. For example, it was discovered in the wake of the U.S. occupation of Iraq that strong U.N. Security Council sanctions had destroyed Iraq's nuclear weapons program and succeeded in preventing Saddam Hussein from restarting it between the Gulf War in 1991 and the coalition occupation of Iraq in 2003." By sanctioning Iraq, we were able to stop a dangerous foe from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. When faced with a determined enemy, there can be no alternative besides sanctioning them in order to preserve the security of the world. We did not trade with Nazi Germany while fighting them in World War II. We did not trade with the hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. Why would we want to aid the military development of our staunch enemies by trading them valuable resources? In these cases, sanctioning countries we are at war at or could potentially be in a war with is not only moral; it's downright necessary. Subpoint B: Carefully targeted sanctions minimize the impact of sanctions on the lives of innocent civilians. According to Choksy in the August 4, 2009 issue of Foreign Policy, "If international action is directed specifically against high-ranking Iranian individuals and corporations causing internal repression and external strife, rather than the Iranian people as a whole, those sanctions will send an unmistakable, tangible, message that the world seeks to be just and fair. Moreover, such action will further mitigate and possibly eliminate the threat posed by Iran's leaders and institutions against their people and the West." For these reasons I urge a negative vote in today's debate. Onto my opponent's case: My opponent's value is "efficiency and benevolence of any purported action in the area of foreign policy." I would like to observe that my opponent's two values conflict one another. Something that is efficient is not always benevolent and vice versa. For example, it may be efficient for governments simply to send in a squad of assassins to take care of a hostile leader, but it would not be benevolent to do so. For this reason, morality is the value on which the debate should be judged. Secondly, if you don't buy that my oppooent's values are contradictory, they in fact support the negative advocacy better. In the cases I have previously shown, sanctions were solely responsible for the removal of the totalitarian Serrano from his office in Guatemala. They stopped Iraq from acquiring nukes. They turned Libya from terrorism. All of those benefits provided by sanctions provided the "ability...to accomplish stated objectives in addition to the total happiness and prosperity produced in the outcome." Because the maximum prosperity for the world in terms of stopping weapons proliferation, terrorism, and totalitarianism was achieved on the negative, I satisfy the my opponent's value better. C1: S1. My opponent states that because sanctions fail to discriminate between civilians and soldiers, they don't fulfill his value. However, it is the negative position that some collateral damage is unavoidable: in war, civilians can be killed when factories are bombed; however, that doesn't make the bombing of the factories immoral. Sanctions, while they may cause some harm to the civilian population, have overall greater benefits already discussed, justifying the harms. S2. My opponent cites how sanctions failed because of rallying around the flag for Slobodan Milosevic; however, according to Peterson Institute for International Economics in "Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism ", the sanctions against Serbia were actually effective in the "destabilization of Milosevic." C2: I agree that "ought" can be used to express efficiency; however, I disagree that the negative must compare sanctions to every other possible alternate course of action. This places an unreasonable burden of proof on the negative as it is impossible to go back in time and try a different method, and so that assertion must be dropped. The affirmative must be held accountable to prove the existence of any possible alternatives to sanctions. C3: S1: My opponent discusses "smart sanctions" and how they could be an alternative to sanctions; however, I would argue that smart sanctions are economic sanctions. There is nothing in my opponent's definition of sanctions that rules out providing exemptions to those not involved with illicit activities. S2. My opponent presents diplomacy as an alternative; however, he gives no instance where it actually worked (in fact he gave an instance where it failed). Furthermore, against hostile nations diplomacy is simply not a viable course of action. S3. My opponent presents war as an option; however, as I discussed in my case, there can be no war without sanctions: we wouldn't continue trading with a country that we are battling with, would we? I urge a negative vote in today's debate.