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

I negate. The afirmative burden is to prove the resolution true. This means he must demonstrate that the principle of economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives is wrong not that it has had negative effects or has no worked in specific instances. If I can find incidences of its appropriate use or theoretical explanations for why economic sanctions should be used then you ought to negate. I value Morality defined as the principles of right and wrong which tell us what we ought to do. Since the resolution asks what we ought to do then morality is the most appropriate tool for weighing the resolution. My criterion for morality is the fufillment of social contract obligations. The social contract is an agreement between the people and a legitimate government giving authority to rule as long as it meets its basic obligations. Before government men lived in a state of nature where rights were constantly threatened by each man and retribution could never be determined properly. In order to protect ourselves we consented to give up the right to punish to a central body whose sole purpose was to protect our natural rights. Government must uphold its agreement with people or it is immoral. Therefore I submit that the purpose of foriegn policy is to encourage legitimate government among other Peoples of the World and to benefit the prosperity of all legitimate governments. First I contend that economic sanctions are an invaluable tool in fufilling our own foriegn policy goals. A. Protectionism is necessary to prevent runaway unemployment. One for of economic santion is known as protectionism. In this strategy one nation will levy a tariff or tax on the imports of a certain good from a certain other nation. The effectively increases the price of the good before it reaches the market. This strategy is a sanction because it will always serve to decrease demand for the product and cost the exporting nation revenue. This is used to prevent a large shift in the labor market. For example if Chinese labor is 1/10 the cost of US labor and it costs the same to make steel in both nations the US must levy a tax on Chinese steel or hundreds of thousands of US workers will be out of a job. Therefore economic sanctions are necessary to prevent complete economic collapse in the labor force which would certainly thrust huge secotors of any nation into poverty. B. Economic sanctions effectively assert moral outrage. Sanctions can be used for more than economic gain. As the voice and actor for the people the government has an obligation to speak out against atrocities which its people abhor. Because we, as citizens of the global community, have the moral obligation to express outrage at injustice so too does the government as the actor of our society. This makes economic sanctions an absolutely essential tool. For example, it makes no sense to say that we ought to do everything in our power to stop Hitler's Holocaust yet we ought not use economic santions against Germany. In fact, to not use sanctions in this case would be immoral since it would mean dollars from a moral society going to support a morally disgusting cause. C. Commerce with hostile nations is nonsensical. If a nation poses a threat to a free people the government must fufill it's first and most important contractual obligation; to protect the lives of its citizens. Such an objective requires the full extent of the government's resources. This certainly includes economic sanctions. If our objective is to destroy a nation, protect from invasion by a nation, or any other relevant goal, then we must use out full ability. To encourage a hostile nation's commerce and thereby its success and whealth is a direct violation of the social contract by supporting a violation of the rights of the people the government is sworn to protect. Not using economic sanctions against foriegn enemies would be immoral. Second, I contend that economic sanctions are invaluable to other free Peoples of the world. A. Economic sanctions can defeat immoral governments from external pressure.' If a coordinated effort is made by the prosperous free nations of the world to sanction a nation whose actions are imoral and unacceptable then that nation will find itself hard pressed to continue its ways. In a global economy where each country must find its niche in the market we are all interdependent and a nation which faces pressure can be forced to change its policies. While economic sanctions are often not enough alone they are often a key part of strategy. According to Joseph G. Gavin III of the CATO Institute, "The declared objective of the June 1982 pipeline sanctions was to induce the Soviets to lift military rule in Poland, but an apparent purpose was to impede construction of a gas pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe, which some U.S. officials believed would make Europe too dependent on the Soviet Union for energy supplies. By the fall of 1982 U.S. officials had, in effect, redefined the declared policy goal and President Reagan announced on November 13 that the sanctions were being lifted as a result of "substantial agreement" on East-West issues between the United States and its allies." Sanctions are a necessary tool to cause change in immoral nations. Now lets look at the affirmative case: Start with his value of the Common Good. One, he gives no warrent why this should be the highest value or how it should guide action. Two, Common good is not always moral. For example, in the United States slavery was not just normal at one time but a vital part of life. Extremely cheap labor allowed the country to thrive and contributed to the common good. However, it violated rights and the government has an obligation to protect rights given through the social contract over the common good. His criterion is protection of the innocent however as I pointed out above the innocent aren't always protected whren we pursue the common good. Second, he doesn't tell us what innocents we must protect or why or what this entails, this ultimately fails at the job of weighing the issues of the debate. Third, the obligations of our own citizens will always come first since the governments existence is predicated on the consent of the governed. Fourth, turn it, in order to protect the innocent it is necessary to take a stand against oppression in illegitimate nations such as Nazi Germany by enforcing economic sanctions. His first contention says sanctions harm the nation which imposes them. However, one, even if they can have a harmful effect at times they should still be a tool open to use in appropriate situations. Refer to the burdens I establish in my case. He gives the example of Britain and Africa however unemployment would only skyrocket because Africa has very little of its own production and it is a major importer of British goods. This is NOT a general situation. And furthermore he cannot extrapolate any impact form this example. Finally this point has no link whatsoever to protecting innocents or fufilling social contract obligations. His second contention says sanctions can backfire. He says that sanctions make cooperation unlikely. However, one, this is untrue look at the example of Regan's progress with Russia under economic sanctions and two, sanctions are intented as a last resort when negotiations already failed. He says sanctions don't work by themselves however this is not relevant in any way to this topic and sanctions can and should be used along with other foriegn policy tools to be successful. FInally he gives examples of sanctions in the first Gulf war hurting innocent people. One, our obligation to protect the US from foriegn threats outweighs the effect on innocents. Two, turn this. Effects of sanctions on real people can cause internal pressure to mount for a revolution. Third, this fails again to meet his burden of proof. For these reasons you must negate.