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

"The one permanent emotion of inferior man is fear-fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above all else is safety." -H. L. Mencken, a prominent newspaperman from 1899-1933 Because I agree with Mr. Mencken, I stand to negate the resolution. Before I continue, I wish to offer the following definitions in order to clarify my case: Foreign policy: a set of goals outlining how a country will interact with other countries, from the world politics review Economic sanctions: domestic penalties applied by one country to another for a variety of reasons, from freetrade.org Security: a state of being free from danger, from Merriam Webster online dictionary Ought: used to express an obligation, from Merriam Webster online dictionary My value for this round will be National Security. My criterion for this round will be utility. Merriam-Webster online defines utility as something useful. If a policy is useful then a government should be able to utilize when necessary. If these sanctions work even sometimes, then governments should be able to use them to protect themselves. Getting rid of economic sanctions because one sanction doesn't work would be like getting rid of all the worlds' computers because one broke, just plain senseless. We will examine why we need to vote negative through 1st. Economic sanctions do work. 2nd. Economic sanctions by one country can affect the world. 3rd.Multilateral sanctions increase efficiency. 4th. Economic sanctions are better than the alternative, war. Contention one, economic sanctions do work. According to Economic Sanctions by Franklin Foer, a freelance journalist, even if sanctions don't topple a regime or end terrorism, they provoke economic hardship, and may deter future misbehavior. In other words, these sanctions warn the target country of future consequences, which may be war. These sanctions are a second chance for nations to change their policies. Why deprive those nations of a second chance? We shouldn't. Contention two, economic sanctions by one country can affect the world. According to bank shots: how the financial system can isolate rogues, by R. Loeffler, in Foreign Affairs magazine, when Washington made it illegal for U.S. banks to relate with North Korea, many countries on a global scale ceased relating with them. Contention three, multilateral economic sanctions increase efficiency. . According to bank shots: how the financial system can isolate rogues, by R. Loeffler, in Foreign Affairs magazine, when Iran wanted to bank with China, China lessened ties with them, as the U.S. did. With Iran only interacting with Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, and Yemen, Iran only got a minimal amount of money, rather than China's wealth. Contention four, economic sanctions are better than the alternative, war. We all know war can be devastating to many people, so why not prevent it if possible? We can by allowing target nations the second chance economic sanctions offer. By going to all-out war, we deny target nations a second chance. Overall, in my case, not only is the implementing nation secure from the threat, but we are being fair to the target nation by giving them a second chance, and allowing economic sanctions to serve their purpose: to change offensive policies and to attempt to prevent war.