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

Here is the case. Lets do this LD style, IE extension OK Definitions: Davidsson defines economic sanctions as macro--‐economic measures aimed at the entire economy of a target state Legal Boundaries to UN [Economic] Sanctions The International J. of Human Rights (UK), Winter 2003, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.1--‐50 Webster defines Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation West's encyclopedia of American law defines Human rights as: The basic rights and freedoms, to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty. Foreign policy objectives: Human rights Cohen explains: Human rights have always played a role in foreign policy throughout American history because this country was founded on a constitution and bill of rights that proclaimed freedom and individual liberties....Jimmy Carter declared human rights to be a "central concern" of foreign policy.…under international law, the United States had a legal right and responsibility to promote human rights...No member of the United Nations could claim that mistreatment of its own citizens was solely its own business. Cohen. Foreign Service Institute, 2008 http://isim.georgetown.edu... Justice: Giving each their due The value is justice. This is the paramount consideration in the round because 1 Unjust actions harm society, because they are detrimental to the welfare of the populace, and thus justice is essential to achieving societal welfare and all other values. 2 The resolution is in the context of government action, and governments must be just, or they should not be allowed to take actions that impact a lot of people. 3 The point of sanctions is to better the quality of the people's lives, so if they become more unjust that would be counter- productive. 4 Justice protects the people from the government and therefore ought to be regarded as a supreme code at all times. Without justice, the government does not have to give each their due, and thus can promote human rights violations. Justice protects the people from such violations of their rights. The value criterion is protecting innocents. This achieves justice because 1 Without protecting innocents, we treat citizens as means to an end, which is unjust. We must give each due rights to protection and life to solve for human rights. 2 Punishing those who are not guilty is unjust. 3 Because we are trying to achieve foreign policy objectives, defined as human rights we must protect the innocent who are being denied these rights. Because it is the duty of all nations to protect those innocents, we must consider protecting them first. 4 Protecting innocents makes our policies more internationally attractive. Contention 1: Sanctions violate human rights of innocents and are counter intuitive. (A) Sanctions violate human rights of innocents. This means that sanctions cannot achieve foreign policy objectives since they undermine human rights. We are not acting justly if innocents are harmed, and if they are deprived of their rights. In Iraq over 500,000 children died before the age of 5 according to UNICEF, and we therefore deprived those children of the right to live. Sanctions are unjust, because the innocent are being punished for acts that they did not commit and immoral because they harm civilians. Because the purpose of sanctions is to achieve human rights, then we are undermining foreign policy objectives, because we cannot achieve them if innocents are suffering. Rieff gives the example of sanctions imposed on Iraq: Iraq's devastation is not primarily the result of American bombing during the war or of the looting that followed it, but of the economic crisis that befell the country before the first shot was fired… Those who died had not themselves developed weapons of mass destruction or invaded Kuwait. Rather, they were the cannon fodder for Hussein's war and the victims of his repression…Meanwhile, at the General Assembly, governments of a majority of the countries in the developing world were actively denouncing sanctions as wantonly brutal -- as a policy that in effect punished the Iraqi people in the cruelest possible manner without weakening Saddam Hussein's grip on power in the slightest… Khaled Afra, phrased it this way: 'Saddam was a criminal, the biggest. But sanctions were also criminal. There was a huge amount of victims due to illness. You see, sanctions really killed our dreams -- not my personal dreams only, but those of my Iraqi people, all of us.' (b) Sanctions are hypocritical, because they cause more violations of human rights, where they are meant to punish abuses of human rights. Howlett explains Amy Howlett, "Getting ‘Smart': Crafting Economic Sanctions That Respect All Human Rights", Fordham Law Review, Volume 73, 2004. The United States has imposed economic sanctions to punish violations of civil and political human rights abroad with increasing frequency in recent years. n7 ... where economic sanctions cause severe human suffering, they jeopardize rights of civilians living inside the sanctioned country by, for example, destroying jobs, contributing to poor health conditions, and increasing hunger and poverty. n10 Thus, the same sanctions that are imposed to end human rights violations are causing human rights violations. Therefore economic sanctions undermine the purpose that they were imposed upon in the first place, because they punish innocents by depriving them of rights. This is unjust, because everyone is due human rights, and punishing innocents is unjust, because they are not due punishment. In imposing sanctions we use the people as means to an end, because the purpose of sanctions is to achieve human rights by eliminating unjust governments. This use of innocents to get to the government is immoral, because the citizens are being used as means to get to their government. 2 Economic sanctions further empower corrupt governments. Not only do sanctions in themselves harm innocents, but they are of assistance to the targeted regime, allowing them to further repress the people. This promotes further violations of human rights, and is counterproductive because when sanctions are meant to harm the government, they further empower it. Durry writes: Sanctions generally harm the socio-economic and political status of average civilians, while political elites remain insulated from coercion ... sanctions create new capabilities and incentives within the target that lead the regime to restrict the freedoms of citizens in order to preserve its hold on power… Economic sanctions inadvertently reinforce the targeted regime's political power because the leadership itself can escape the cost of the sanctions, while simultaneously enhancing their support from key social and political groups and disproportionately weakening average citizens. Although economic coercion aims to restrict political elite's access to scarce economic and military resources, the leaders more often than not can mitigate the negative effect of economic coercion by controlling the allocation of the increasing scarce resources within the society as well as using transnational black markets and illegal smuggling... A regime can maintain a certain level of access to goods and hard currency through illegal arms sales, drug smuggling, and money laundering... Kim Jong-Il's elaborate illegal activities allow the North Korean elite to flourish not just survive. Not only can the leadership mitigate the economic harm for itself, but it can also redirect resources to or from domestic political groups. The leadership decides which groups—such as the military and police—thrive and which groups—such as an opposition party—suffer. Thus, the leaders can pay off their political supporters, and those pay-offs are more valuable because the sanctions have made