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

This topic is the current resolution for Lincoln Douglas Debate. Therefore, I ask it remain in LD format. Only take this debate if you understand the LD format as well as the topic. Thank you. I will begin on Neg, and await an opponent on the Aff. I negate the resolution, resolved: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Before proceeding I provide the following observations. One: In order to remain relevant and concise to the resolution, the foreign policy objective will be generalized as an action or precaution in response to another nation's wrongdoing or threat of aggression. Two: The negative upholds economic sanctions, only if there is a warrant or reason to do so, in order for economic sanctions to remain as a justified action. This follows the Just Cause principle which states "A state may launch defense only for the right reason. The just causes most frequently mentioned include: defenses against potential attacks; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected…" Therefore, economic sanctions are only supported if there is a just cause, a potential harm or wrong-doing present. I accept the definitions of my opponent, but reserve the right to later clarify in the round. For my value I choose national security National Security is the condition of the nation, in terms of threats, especially threats from outside. One of the major jobs of the federal government is to ensure the security of the nation. (defined from history central.com) A government always looks to its own security as the paramount value, therefore, we should as well. A nation is concerned only for its own citizens, not others. As I've stated earlier in my case, I only uphold economic sanctions if there is a justified warrant or reason to do so. The general reason that a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, and such measures. In order to ensure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banning trade keeps the threats out. Economic sanctions are also used in response to threats of aggression, by banning trade, the sanctioned nation will be pressured to eliminate their wrongdoings. By enforcing economic sanctions, a nation prevents harms to itself, because a government is concerned only for its own safety. The nation they sanction will be punished for their wrongdoing, thus influencing the nation to drop its threats. For my value criterion, I choose that of government legitimacy. Government legitimacy is the means by which a government fulfills its responsibility to those who it governs. Through national security we best achieve government legitimacy; by using economic sanctions for reasons earlier stated. I proceed to support my case with the following contentions. Contention One: Economic Sanctions are the most efficient option towards threats of aggression. The only other alternative to economic sanctions is warfare. Unless my opponent points out another valid alternative, that stands in the round, this remains true. -Warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions. The implications of this official report are staggering! As of May 2002, the Gulf War casualties include 83000 veterans dead and 959705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to our nation. The official May 2002 Department of Veteran Affairs report classifies 568011 individuals as "disabled veterans". That reflects a staggering casualty result for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991. Joy Gordon writes "Since the program began [Economic sanctions] , an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions..." Where is the greater number here? Contention Two: Economic sanctions allow governments to protect themselves. Sub point A: Threats of aggression justify economic sanctions. The UN Security Council, empowered under Article 16 of the UN Charter to use economic measures to address "threats of aggression" and "breaches of peace," approved partial or comprehensive sanctions. Sub point B: Why sit on our thumbs and wait for chaos? Iraq seems to be a common example in this topic. Therefore, let us look at the present day war between the US and the Middle East. The UNSCOM reported about the Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) that were held by Iraq: "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland. Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war. " With this warrant [threat of aggression] we sought to end the plan of WMD in order to maintain national security. Conclusion: We see that economic sanctions are our only alternative to warfare. Warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions. Economic sanctions against threats of aggression are lawful according to Article 16 of the UN Charter. I remain on justified grounds, that economic sanctions are only upheld if there is reason and/or warrant, my advocacy may not be extended. In order to minimize harm, eliminate threats, maintain national security, and evade hectic warfare, we employ economic sanctions. I await the Affirmative opponent's constructive case and cross-examination!