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

What exactly is a right reason? ~For economic sanctions... I stated "breaches of peace" or "threats of agression" also outlined by Article 16 of the UN Charter, in my case. Do economic sanctions affect the citizens of the country that they are imposed upon? ~It depends on the citizens... Having children die from sanctions is ok, as long as its not as many men that die from wars? ~First of all, children are still people. Second, MEN and WOMEN die in wars, who are still people. Are all laws just and right? ~Depends what your political views are... Generally, yes. Do you believe there are more violent countries that should have sanctions upon them? ~Depends... are there anymore countries that threaten national security? Do you agree that economic sanctions themselves are not enough? ~No...I uphold them for a reason...? I move on to rebut my opponent. By attacking my opponent's case through line-by-line. I'll begin with my opponent's definitions. I agree with the foreign policy definition, but as I have stated in my Observation One: "foreign policy objectives will be generalized as an action or precaution in response to another nation's wrongdoing or threat of aggression." Therefore we only act towards a threat of aggression, which I explain in Observation Two and other points of my case. I agree with the definition of economic sanctions, although my opponent claims it is too vague to decide HOW MANY we place exactly. This isn't very relevant, whether it is plural or not we still look to one definition, and see that a government can limit as much as it wants within justifications… My opponent's value is that of Free Trade. According to the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), the greatest danger of globalization is that it allows corporations to act without accountability, thus enabling them to victimize the poor. In "How to End Poverty: Making Poverty History and the History of Poverty" (http://www.navdanya.org..., March 28, 2005), Vandana Shiva contends that the concept of poverty embodied by the globalization movement is mistaken because it is based on the notion that "simple, sustainable living" is the same as "dispossession and deprivation." According to Shiva, the globalization movement's focus on consumerism (selling products to people through free trade) denies people in traditional cultures the ability to support themselves by growing their own food, making their own clothing, and otherwise providing for themselves. Shiva further maintains that when corporations and industries take land from self-sustaining cultures, they actually push those people into poverty by depriving them of the resources they need to survive, thus causing dependence for the nation, weakening the country, and their economy. Also, this has no moral link to the resolution as to why it is a considerable alternative. Therefore, we look to warfare or economic sanctions to stay relevant to the resolution. Her value criterion states that government interference ruins trade. This isn't relevant. The affirmative's burden is to prove why economic sanctions are not moral. Economic sanctions are going to harm an economy in the first place, because they restrict trade...that is the point. Her third contention also doesn't show how she has a worldwide benefit of free trade. C1) My opponent states (because of economic sanctions) "Castro has a handy excuse for why his socialism is failing" Lack of funding is sure to bring down socialism, of course. But let's look at both sides of the story. The US posed ES towards Cuba first of all (above evidence) Castro's Cuba is a prime example of a nation developing such unconventional or asymmetric methods of challenging or threatening the United States. March 31, 1998 edition, of the Washington Post addressed the topic of the threat from Cuba, stating " Cuba has one of the most sophisticated biotech and pharmaceutical industries in the hemisphere. Because lethal biological materials can be produced by countries with biotech industries, it is difficult to determine when a country moves from simply having the capability to produce deadly viruses, to the intent or plans to do so". Given Castro's proven instability, ongoing anti-Americanism, and proximity to the U.S., it would be an unacceptable mistake to underestimate his capabilities or his intentions. A report submitted by the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment in late 1995 identified Cuba among seventeen countries believed to possess biological weaponsIn an appearance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence￼, January, 1998, Louis J. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated " State sponsors of terrorism include Cuba". It has long been a concern also in the scientific community that Soviet scientists led the world in development of Radio Frequency weapon technologies. The Soviet Union had a large and diverse RF weapons program and this work continue today within FSU countries. It is well known the close technical and military relationship in this field between the Soviet Union and Cuba. The relationship includes the establishment of the Lourdes' electronic espionage base, operated in Cuba by the Russians, and most recently, the construction of a similar base in Bejucal, operated solely by Cuban personnel. Because Castro's Cuba is a remain threat to the US, the US is justified in attempting to ban trade, and weapons from Cuba. A government is always justified in protecting its people from threats with maintaining its national security. Castro continues with threats of aggression towards the US, thus justifying economic sanctions. All of her evidence revolves around Cuba and US economic sanctions. I proved why it is justified for the US to sanction against Cuba. Therefore, all of her points that rely on Cuba's situation fall. Subpoint B of her first contention states that we are harmed because of the economic sanction with Cuba. She offers only free trade against economic sanctions, I already showed why free trade promotes globalization and poverty. Warfare is the only alternative that stands in the round. The Cold War involved with Cuba costed more than economic sanctions costed the US economy... "Total cost of the Cold War (1948-1991) = $13.1 Trillion. Average annual military spending during Cold War = $298.5 Billion. Average annual military spending during peacetime Cold War (excluding Korean Vietnam War years) = $285.4 Billion. Martin Calhoun, Senior Research Analyst, July 9, 1996." Compare this to her economic sanction harms and we see that economic sanctions are obviously worth it compared to the warfare costs. Her C2) Sbpt A states that Economic sanctions cannot be justified because they cannot achieve foreign policy objectives. I stated in my Observation 1. We generalize foreign policy objectives as a response to threats of aggression, that is the only time they are justified, that is only when the negative upholds them, and my advocacy does not extend beyond that. Her C3) She states by allowing free trade and removing sanctions with Cuba we can make Castro's socialism fail. She states in cross examination if citizens can tour and trade with the US Castro will loose income. If the citizens can trade with the US so can Castro's diplomacy. Second, socialism is an economic system based on state/diplomacy's ownership of capital. Therefore, Castro isn't effected at all, and will still be able to control Cuba's industry. As well as remaining a terriorist threat and carrying missles, threatening national security. Castro's diplomacy never agreed upon democracy... therefore her subpoint B falls. I conclude: A government is morally justified in maintaining its own national security. Governemt is empowered to control trade and tax. All Cuban evidence has been warranted (why the US is justified in sanctioning see above) therefore all Cuban defense and points