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

Barack Obama holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' with Kim Jong-il and Fidel Castro. That is Outstanding hahaha lol i love that! K i will first start of by presenting my case and move on to attacking my opponets. As well as my opponet i will jst make up some arguments "By imposing economic sanctions, corrupt leaders are denied resources needed to continue their unjust courses and tyranny. Further, this is accomplish without killing others and avoiding collateral damage" It is because I agree with Dr. Trevor Sather PhD in foreign policy that I must negates today's resolution. Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. For further clarification I offer the following counter definitions…provided by Merriam Webster dictionary. 1.) Economic sanctions: restrictions upon international trade and finance that one or more countries impose on another for political reasons or to establish a just form of government. 2.) Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation 3.) Foreign policy: a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. (Value)—the most superior value for today's round is that of societal welfare. Societal welfare is protection of society as a whole, its health, safety and order, when the agent of action does that which is in their ability to ensure protection and sovereignty of a nation we are achieving societal welfare. The reason this is the value for the round is economic sanctions can provide for societal welfare. Sovereign nations are going to look at their national security as the paramount focus in foreign policy so being able to use economic sanctions if a country feels necessary is to protect the societal welfare of their nation, and in ensuring this protection further extending the opportunities of achieving this to other nations that have not had the opportunity to do so before. Thus societal welfare is paramount. Criterion- The greatest criterion for today's round is that of Thomas Hobbes Social Contract. "The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good and that which we depend upon to live well." In essences Hobbes is saying that the social contract is the building block for societal welfare and the nation's sovereignty and until a social contract is established it will remain in a "state of nature" This state of nature being anarchy, human rights violations and the lack of societal welfare. Thus it would be immoral for sovereign nations to let this "state of nature" continually occur…thus they are morally obligated to have the option to use a enforcement mechanism and thus we have to accept economic sanctions as one of those tools. C1) Economic sanctions promote SW First, Economic sanctions target the corrupt governmental officials, not the citizens Many believe that economic sanctions are imposed to hurt the people within the nation, when in fact it's contrary to this notion. Citizens of countries oppressed by economic sanctions suffer when intended relief efforts are suppressed by their own corrupt government intercepting supplies. Look at the current economic sanctions on North Korea imposed by the United Nations. George Russell on foreign policy reports that the United Nations World Food Program relief effort came up with a fund of over 75 million this year alone and more than half of that amount 38 million of food aid was not delivered…The main reason for this is tyrannous behavior of the North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il, which climaxed on May 25 in a multi-kiloton nuclear explosion, the second North Korean nuclear blast in three years. As a direct reaction of this the United Nations front-line emergency relief agency says it is only able to offer a "partial ration" or fortified foods to 1.8 million North Koreans, leaving 4.4 million of the country's most vulnerable civilians, which WFP had also intended to feed, outside its safety net." This shows that it is not the sanctions causing suffering but the corrupt governmental officials denying relief efforts for their citizens. This proves that ES intend to promote SW thus would be moral to enact. Sb2) Economic sanctions are the most efficient option towards threats of aggression. Other alternatives are not efficient for example warfare is an option and this option should never be picked over sanctions because warfare inflicts more strife and casualties and collateral damage on the nations both participating in this war. So we have to look at a swift and precise targeting option this option is economic sanctions because it minimizes the lives lost within the country imposed with sanctions and the imposing nation therefore we must pick a tool that can do this and that tool is economic sanctions. C2) ES establish a social contract and uphold the preexisting. Sb1) Nations look to protect themselves first. A nation's main priority is to secure its national security and any legitimate government within a nation is going to look to protect its citizens first at all cost. Even if that is to engage in warfare but before a sovereign nation goes to these extreme measures they first must look to alternatives to secure there national security and protect its citizens. We can look to economic sanctions to do this. The main reason a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, and such measures. In order to ensure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banning trade keeps the threats out. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, recently wrote to Congress that "it is unlikely that Iran will have the technical capability or the materials to produce [weapons-grade uranium] necessary for nuclear weapons before 2013". Blair added that U.S. intelligence believes Iran has not yet decided whether to produce weapons-grade materiel, and would be unlikely to do so while its nuclear effort remains under international scrutiny from economic sanctions, This shows that sanctions can stop the threat by preventing the nations materials to produce weapons of mass destruction. Okay my opponets value is that of morality...i asked him during CX how do we define morality. his response "An objective, outside observer, ie. somebody in the Original Position I explain why above the criterion." okay well i have two rebutals to this First, this dosent hold a warrant because he does not give a clear example and this is not really hold any significany because there is never a non biased " outside observer" second we my opponets value of morality fails because we can not determine the morality of an action until it has been complted therefore we have to look at the intended motives behind the action... You can practicley cross apply my arguments stated in my case that clearly casue his criterion to fail...its " Original Positosn" His first contention Is that ES stratify Social classes and he goes on to syathat only strong powerfull nations can impose ES this claim fails though because the res is not talking about a certain form o Es so we can see that he is clearly turning this to try to hold a postion..also he does not show why this econmic persuasian is bad so therfore we can see that infact it would be moral.. ALso to adress his second contention I asked him during CX do define a alternative that and he says miltary intervention you can cross apply my arguments that in my case that defeats this so there for he is disproving his own argument to say that military intervention would be more moral to use than sanctions when we can clearly see that there are going to be more lives lost if a counrty engages in this....