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

I will first cross-examine my opponent, present my case, and then refute hers. Cross-Examination: 1) Does the United States have an obligation to protect those who are not its citizens? If yes, why? I reject my opponents definition of an economic sanction on the grounds that macroeconomic measures do not fully encompass the extent of economic sanctions, and the definition is therefore incomplete. I instead offer Huffbauer and Schott's definition: "the deliberate government- inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of 'customary' trade or financial relations (. http://www.cato.org...). " I accept my opponent's definitions of "ought" and "human rights. " I reject my opponent's narrow definition of foreign policy objectives as having only to do with human rights. Foreign policy objectives may be related to achieving human rights, but also encompasses national security, among other topics. I offer the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia's definition: "General objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states. The development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs. " Observation 1: My opponent must show that economic sanctions or the threat therein may not be used at all to achieve foreign policy objectives. In other words, any economic sanction should not, under any circumstances, be part of a country's foreign policy toolkit. I must show that in certain cases, economic sanctions may be used. Value: Justice, as per Socrates--giving each his or her due. Justice is the basis of any moral, social, or political framework, and applies to all human interactions and is therefore the fundamental value in this debate. Criterion: Preserving natural rights of citizens--natural rights are those to life, liberty, and property. Natural rights are important in that without them, humans have no worth. C1: Well-planned and designed economic sanctions with clearly defined objectives offer a more targeted and less costly alternative to war and have a greater impact than diplomatic talks alone. They therefore provide a less involved middle ground between diplomacy and military force. A. North Korea Diplomatic talks with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il over that country's development of nuclear weapons had been stalled for eighteen months when, in 2007, US officials froze select Banco Delta Asia accounts in Macao. This selective blocking of financial transactions brought North Korea back to the negotiating table. This is but a small step towards a nonproliferation agreement, but the restarting of talks caused by the narrow application of economic sanctions marks an improvement over the previous stalemate. The US government therefore satisfies the value of justice in that it used economic sanctions as a means to restart talks that would assure the lives and liberty of its citizens. B. Iran In February of 2007, the US Government enacted a trade ban against three Iranian companies known to be direct suppliers of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, a government agency known to be building weapons of mass destruction—that is, a nuclear bomb. Such an action resulted in no deaths on either side, but effectively blocked major sources of materials for Iran's nuclear energy program. By denying Iran the resources it needs to build a WMD, the US renders its citizens and the citizens of other nations safer from the threat of a nuclear bomb, thus upholding their natural rights and satisfying the value of justice. My Opponent's Case: I have already addressed the definitions above. Our values are essentially the same; justice has therefore been adopted as the value for this round. My criterion of protecting natural rights encompasses her criterion of protecting the innocent. Protection of innocents is part of protecting life, liberty, and property, therefore the preservation of natural rights is the value of the round. C1: I concur that the poor usage of sanctions can lead to the human rights abuses that my opponent cites. However, these abuses were the result of blanket economic sanctions, which are not the targeted economic sanctions that I advocate. C2: Once again, the examples cited by my opponent only apply to large-scale, unfocused economic sanctions. It is true that this injudicious use of sanctions causes harm. The example cited here of North Korea has furthermore been directly refuted by my second card. Nevertheless, both contentions are moot as my opponent never addressed targeted economic sanctions. My opponent also fails to offer any alternative method by which natural rights may be achieved. In the absence of any plan of action, now that the imposition of sanctions has been "removed," one may assume that my opponent will do nothing. How will refusing to act to rectify any situation protect innocents or natural rights? It will not. Inaction will either exacerbate the issue at hand or signal complicity, neither which protects the V/VC. Alternately, war will not satisfy the value of justice either--killing citizens to initiate change is hardly just. My opponent has failed to address any of the point in my case. In addition, her case has been shown to be contradictory as she never provides a method by which she may ensure natural rights. Her case fails to prove definitively that all economic sanctions must not be used under any circumstances, whereas I have shown that economic sanctions have a time and place in which they may be used. For this reason, I urge you to vote Neg