Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

I would like to start by thanking skookie for giving me the chance to dust off my old sanctions cases and get back into the debate mindset before nationals - I apologize for skimping on opening and closing courtesies last round, but my case and rebuttals ran right up to character limit. This round will be somewhat of an anomaly; skookie is at a debate tournament and thus unable to post an argument this round. He posted about this in advance, so the above forfeit should not be counted against him when you attribute conduct points while voting. We will resume debate next round and conclude debate in Round 4. Neither of us will post any sort of arguments in Round 5. Basically, the debate will follow this map: R1: Constructives R2: Filler R3: Rebuttals R4: Closing R5: Nothing Because there are no arguments in this round and my arguments ran right up to the character limits last round, I will simply be sourcing my arguments from round one. Most of them were paraphrased from evidence whose qualifications I could not post previously. I have run this by skookie, and he is fine with it. With that, four sources: First, when I refer to "Lauren et al.", I am referring to the book 'Force and Statecraft', a study on international relations and diplomacy over time. See: http://www.us.oup.com... . The authors hold various history and international relationship professorships at various universities. I stated that smart sanctions are a recent development, the result of the rapid evolutions of sanctions. I was referring to these two pieces of evidence. Jeremy Torranz '06 (I'm trying to find the source article so I can provide credentials) Economic sanctions have only been used in the past 60 years as a serious part of foreign policy. [O]nly in the past decade [have] economic sanctions begun integrating all that we have learned into a new generation of sanction protocolgranted that in the past economic sanctions have caused harm to innocent civilians, the economic sanctions levied in the current generation have shown little effect on innocent populations, while still having a high rate of success. To criticize economic sanctions due to failures in the 1960's-90's is much like criticizing medicine today for the practice of bleeding in the 1700's. We know now that food sanction ultimately lead to death, whereas financial and luxury good sanctions are effective at mobilizing the rich against the government in question with little harm to the population at large." and Professor Lopez from Syracuse University '07 "Sanctions techniques have become increasingly effective. This trend can be attributed to a number of mutually reinforcing realities. First, policymakers from the United States and the international community now recognize those factors in sanctions formulation and implementation that lead to success. Second, the development of "smart sanctions" provide greater versatility while limiting humanitarian damage. Third, the success of sanctions necessitates a coordinated strategy that balances sanctions and incentives as complementary tools designed to pressure and encourage delinquent states into changing their behavior." Finally, regarding percentages: John Hovi at the University of Oslo explains that "Percentage statistics of the success rates of economic sanctions are highly misleading as the leading research on sanctions misconstrues the evidence by including sanctions that were meant to be symbolic or show the citizenry that the country is taking a stand against the evil of another government. When sanctions that were intended to merely take a stand and were levied with little expectation of success are removed from the formula, the percentage of success rises to over 52%, with an additional 30% being at least partially effective at reaching a foreign policy goal." You'll notice that this 82% combined rate agrees well with Shagabutdinova and Berejikian's 13% failure rate. Those were the three cards I was unable to cite in the previous round, and I hope that they've made the negative ground in this debate a bit clearer. With that, it's back to skookie.