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

Thank your for this debate I affirm the resolution Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. For the clarity of the debate, I offer the following definitions: Economic sanctions from heritage.org- An economic sanctions is any restriction imposed by one country (the sender) on international commerce with another country (the target) in order to persuade the target country's government to change a policy. Ought from dictionary.com- Used to indicate obligation or duty Foreign policy from Merriam-Webster- the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states Objectives from thefreedictionary.com- an aim or purpose Observation: As the particular "foreign policy objective" is not stated in the resolution, we have to debate economic sanctions as a general principle. My value of this round is democracy which is defined according to dictionary.com- a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Clearly democracy is needed for a society to be fair and just. For this reason democracy should be the paramount value in this debate. My criterion for this round will be free trade which is defined according to dictionary.com- trade between countries, free from governmental restrictions or duties. Increased trade and economic integration promote civil and political freedoms directly by opening a society to new technology, communications and democratic ideas. An interesting corollary is that governments that "protect" their citizens behind tariff walls and other barriers to international commerce find it much easier to deny political and civil liberties. So economic sanctions are a barrier to international commerce and allow governments to deny political and civil liberties. So democracy is not upholded, therefore there aren't equal rights and privileges in the target country. C1: Economic sanctions strengthen oppressive regimes and don't lead to democracy According the Shane Smith, "Sanctions: Diplomatic Tool, or Warfare by Other Means?", economic sanctions serve as a rallying point for oppressive leaders. They use sanctions as a political cover to increase repression. Rather than having a pacifying effect on the targeted actor, sanctions strengthen a leader's domestic support. Outside pressure can be also used by leaders to ignore domestic troubles, placing the blame for economic instability on the outsider, and providing political cover to further repress domestic dissidents, while directing resentment toward those who impose the sanction. Some scholars, such as Daniel Fisk, conclude that "economic sanctions are a policy instrument with little, if any, chance of achieving much beyond making policy-makers feel good about having done something for a particular domestic." According to George Friedman, "Acting while avoiding action in Iran", this points to an interesting characteristic of sanctions. One of the potential goals of placing sanctions on a country is to generate unrest and internal opposition, forcing regime change or at least policy change. This rarely happens. Instead the imposition creates a sense of embattlement within the country. Two things follow from this. First, there is frequently a boost in support for the regime that might otherwise not be there. The idea that economic pain takes precedence over patriotism or concern for maintaining national sovereignty is not a theory with a great deal of empirical support. Second, the sanctions allow a regime to legitimize declaring a state of emergency – which is what sanctions intend to create – and then use that state of emergency to increase repression and decrease the opportunity for an opposition to emerge. An example where economic sanctions strengthened a regime is Cuba. Economic sanctions have been in place on Cuba for nearly fifty years, and nothing has changed. Castro increased his own power by blaming the United States for the failure of his policies. To this day, Cuba remains a Communist country. C2: Free trade promotes democracy The Atlas program, "Free Trade in the Fox-Bush Era," held on April 18-19, 2001, emphasized aspects of free trade that are often overlooked in typical public discussions. Atlas's keynote speaker, Fausto Alzati, former Mexican Minister of Education and founding chairman of the Mexico City-based think tank, CILACE, opened the discussions by describing free trade's positive impact upon democracy. Alzati acknowledged the standard efficiency arguments made for free trade by its proponents: the enhancement of economic opportunities and the creation of wealth. Just as important, however, is its role in promoting democracy. Using the Mexican case as an example, he described how free trade is gradually dismantling the traditional sources of revenue - customs duties in his country – that have enabled authoritarian governments to remain in power. Hence, free trade has a strong, dampening effect upon authoritarian rule, enabling greater opportunities for democracy to take hold. In fact, Alzati said, Mexican President Vicente Fox would never have been elected to office without the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA started dismantling long-standing avenues of rent seeking, weakening the abilities of corrupt leaders to fund their power bases. To nurture democracy, Alzati concluded, we need to have "real free trade" - not purely for economic reasons, but also to enhance the quality of life and democracy for people around the globe. Thank you for this debate. I look forward to your rebuttal.