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

My first case in point that I would like to make, is in regards to the accuracy of con's source in regards to the sanctions on India and Pakistan. The source claims "This worked in India and Pakistan to delay those countries production of nuclear weapons for decades." however sanctions did not stop or delay the nuclear programs of either nation. The sanctions in Pakistan were lifted in 1981 (only 7 years after the start of their nuclear program) and money was being given to them because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan [2]. Aid continued to go to Pakistan until 1990, when it was canceled due to the Presser amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 61 [1]. Pakistan then tested 5 nuclear devices in 1998 (though they claimed they reached nuclear as soon as 1987, but that was never confirmed). So after 24 years of the nuclear program, they were under sanctions for only 7 years (74 - 81) and were receiving aid for 9 years (81 - 90). On an after note, after the 98' confirmed test, sanctions were again imposed, only to be removed again in 01'. Also, given that it is expected for nations with no previous nuclear infrastructure to take about 15 years to research, train, build, and gather material [3]. though the report says specifically that they can take more or less. Heck even high technology nations, such as Japan, would take a few years to be ready. These examples also point out another weakness with the sanctions. China helped out Pakistan a lot. And nations that express hostility towards us use our sanctions to rally support (such as Cuba), which can actually make the situation worse. My opponent stated "I guess I do not understand why we would want to trade with the target nation. That would defeat the reason we want to enforce e.s. in the first place, to show them that their policies are offensive." Quite the opposite. We often do this for many nations. In reference to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, we are able to provide assistance to nations so long as they maintain certain standards. We provide assistance to Pakistan so that they help with the war on terror. We also provide open trade to different nations so long as they make sure that their economic policies and social polices are beneficial to their people. That is how we use positive enforcement to get other nations to do what we want. Call it bribing if you want, but it works better and more often then threatening. I have not attacked the second chance statement, because there is no need to. Anything can be a second chance (or third or forth) other then total destruction. An economic sanction can be a 2nd chance, so can wagging your finger at them, or gathering military forces around their borders, or anything. So it is a true statement, but it is not important to this debate. I agree that if the car never start, you can tear it apart and reuse what good parts you can, and so we can tear apart the idea of economic sanctions and scarp it to other ideas that actually do work. But that is going to literal in the example. A different example would be if birth control worked 1/1000 times, would you still use it? what if it was 1/100 or 1/10 or even 1/3? Well, maybe, in conjunction with something more effective. But now, what if that 1/3 birth control also cost a lot of money for those results, would you use it? No. The fact is that Economic Sanctions work rarely and with only minimal results. As my opponent said "...if one works then there is no reason to ban them all, even if they work once in a great blue moon." I would agree with that, if they didn't negatively effect us each time we try to use them. Economic Sanctions are something that costs too much and works too little and too rarely for it to be anything close to a viable option. I have already shown how economic sanctions hurt us, the people using them, as well as the other country. My opponent choose not to argue against that because I can only assume that there is no arguing it. If they were free and without consequences, such as diplomatic talks (well, even those have costs and consequences, but they are quite minimal on the global scale), but they don't they effect our economy, which only comes back and effects the people. [1] http://fpc.state.gov... [2] http://www.fas.org... [3] http://www.lanl.gov...