Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy OBJ>

_______________ I feel obligatred to accept negation of todays resolution. Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. before proceeding, please observe the following observation. it is the affirmitives burden in provision of supplying evidence that economic sanctions are never ok, and the best measures, in any form of foreign policy promotions. if the negative can prove a single instance in which economic sanctions are acceptible, the negtive must win the flow. For clarification of todays round i offer the following counter definitions: Economic sanctions: domestice penalties applied by one country or goup on another for a variety of reasons. Foreign policy Obj.: general objectives that guide the activities and relatinships of one state in its interactiions with other states. For my value i choose NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Nat sov is defined as the power of a state to so everything necessary to govern itself. 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 towards its own security as the paramount value, therefore we should as well. a nations is concerned for only its own citizens, not others. the general reason a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, aggression, traficking, tax invasions, and such measures. in order to insure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banninf trade kepps the threats form entering. for my value-criterion, i choose that of Mark fuller's theory of government legitimacy. the gov legit theory is explained as the government having a legitimate role of protecting life, right and property of those who it governs. government legitimacy forces a government to protect national sovereignty, and when an offending country threatens national sov, the government is obligated to fix it, and there is no better way to do so than solve the problem without physical violence. for clarification of todays round i offer the following contentions and or subpoints: contention one: economic sanctions are the most effective options toward opposing threats and protection of ones government. contention one: economic sanctions are the most effective options towards opposing threats and protection of ones government. unless my opponent points out another valid alternative, that stands in the round, the following statement remains true. SUBPOINT A__ the only other alternative towards opposing threats is warfare. warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions. in an official report written by Joy Gordon, author, results were calculated to weigh out the end results of both economic sanctions and warfare.beforehand, Gordon wrote "Sanctions seem to lend themselves well to international governance. They seem more substantial than mere diplomatic protests, yet they are politically less problematic, and less costly, than military incursions. They are often discussed as though they were a mild sort of punishment, not an act of aggression of the kind that has actual human costs. Consequently, sanctions have for the most part avoided the scrutiny that military actions would face, in the domains of both politics and ethics." then went on to display the difference in sanction results and warfare results.::: as of may 2002, the gulf war casualties include 83, 000 veterans dead and 959705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to the American nation. the official may 2002 department of veteran affairs report classifies 568011 individuals as disabled. that reflects a staggering casualty result for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991. Gordon writes "since the program began (economic sanctions), only an estimated 500,000 have died as a result of the sanctions." SUB POINT B__ economic sanctions defer future misbehavior. Jeffrey Schott, a fellow author from the Institution for International Economics, states that sanctions provoke significant economic hardship. according to Schott, in the nations were economic sanctions succeeded, the average GAP dropped 2.4 percent- the equivalent of a depression. in the first year of U.S. sanctions against Haiti, the country lost 250,000 expert-orientated jobs. UN sanctions against Serbia contributed to a 1,181 percent annual inflation and in their first year, contributed to a 20 percent increase in unemployment. even in the cases where sanctions failed, a 1 percent drop in GAP was reported. in this way, using an economic sanction to strain a criminally aspiring or threatening country's economy so that they understand the consequences of further misbehavior(bad actions), they head the warning and it is their responsibility to correct their actions. this is a warning commonly used to justify and protect a counties national security. knowing the consequences, a country should rightfully put an end to their wrong doings. as i have previously stated, this is the most efficient means of control, because it is one step shy of war. SUBPOINT C__ opposing threats justify economic sanctions. the UN security council, empowered under Article 16 of the UN CHARTER to use economic measures to address threats of aggression,hostility, and misconduct approved partial or comprehension sanctions. the UNSCOM reported about the weapons of mass destruction that were held by Iraq: it states " 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 of bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland." and with this warrant, a threat of aggression, we use economic sanctions to end the plan of weapons of mass destruction in order to maintain national security. also, Franklin Foer wrote that in 1996, Bill Clinton administered economic sanctions on 282 drug traffickings and 49 terrorist organizations." statistics show that 67 percent of these sanctions, were in fact successful. we see that the economic sanctions are our only alternative to warfare. warefare causes more deatrhs and casualtys than sanctions, and that economic sactions against opposing threats are lawful according to Article16 of the UN charter. i reamain on justified grounds taht economic sanctions are upheld and in order to minimize harm, eliminate threats, maintain national sov, and evade hectic warfare, we employ economic sanctions. i conclude that the negation of the resolution should be upheld. i now awain an affirmitive argument and rebuttal.