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

LD Debate format please. Whoever becomes Neg (Con), just write n/a or forfeit the last round only for the purpose of staying to Lincoln-Douglas format. I wish my opponent good luck in the debate! I affirm. By all accounts, the holocaust was one of the most awful disasters in all of human history. Preisler: "The change from civilization to death camp inmate was crushing. One could have died from that experience alone. Beatings and kicks, indulged in by the SS gave us a forewarning of things to come later. They treated us in an inhumane manner and forced us into constant motion in a "hurry up" manner. Many a prisoner was killed by them. The extermination of prisoners was aided by starvation levels of food rations. Hunger was the constant companion of all the prisoners. It was the cause of many diseases and was responsible for major changes in the prisoner's psyche." The holocaust was, simply put, a crime against humanity – people were killed, others starved and diseased. But there is a new holocaust currently going on, in the world today. Sanctions are leading to mass starvation and death among innocent civilians, in addition to causing countries to violate human rights - just like the holocaust. First, Definitions: Economic Sanctions: restrictions on trade with a country in order to influence its political situation or to make its government change its policy. (dictionary.bnet.com) As the resolution specifies "ought not be" and not "ought never be," I do not have to prove that economic sanctions are undesirable in every single scenario, just that they are undesirable in general. If I prove the latter, then you must affirm. I value morality, as the operative word in the resolution is the word ought, and morality is what tells us our obligations. (Merriam Webster) The resolution implies national governments as the actor as only nations can have foreign policy objectives. Governments look at the pros and cons to make decisions. Therefore, my value criterion is maximising net benefits. Contention 1: Sanctions harm innocent bystanders, leading to horrific casualties. McGann: "Groups that have little interest in the issues over which the sender has sought to impose sanctions are likely to have expended little of their resources bargaining on their outcome. These "innocent bystanders," will be the groups most efficiently targeted by sanctions because their contribution to policy outcomes will be greater than other groups." This means that the more effective sanctions are, the more innocent bystanders are harmed. The negative is caught in a so called Double Bind, as if sanctions are effective, innocent people are harmed, and if sanctions are ineffective, we shouldn't use them. If my opponent cannot prove this wrong then you must affirm by default. Sub-Point A: Sanctions lead to high numbers of deaths. Mueller: "Sanctions in Iraq have contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths. By 1998 Iraqi infant mortality had risen from the pre Gulf War rate of 3.7 percent to 12 percent. Inadequate food and medical supplies, as well as breakdowns in sewage and sanitation systems and in the electrical power systems needed to run them, reportedly caused an increase of 40,000 deaths annually of children under the age of 5 and of 50,000 deaths annually of older Iraqis." This means that there were 90,000 deaths each year in Iraq due to sanctions, people who, like those forced into concentration camps, were innocent. And this scenario is replicated across the globe with high death tolls wherever sanctions are used. However this is but one of the horrible things sanctions cause. Sub-Point B: Sanctions cause the targeted country to harshly violate rights, on top of the violations caused by the simple death toll. Peksen: "The symbolic nature of sanctioning is perceived by the targeted political elites as a serious threat to their survival. By limiting their interaction with the outside world, sanctions weaken grassroots pro-democracy movements within the target. Use of coercion to induce political reforms such as respect for universal human rights and religious and ethnic rights of minority groups might also become detrimental to those groups seeking more rights and freedoms against the status quo regime." This means that economic sanctions run counter to the often-used goal of "liberating" other countries from oppressive rule – as when sanctions are used, panicky political elites just act more oppressive. Overall, sanctions shouldn't be used to achieve foreign policy objectives when the goal is to maximise human rights, as it just leads to further harm. Contention 2: Economic sanctions help cause terrorism. Fierke: "If the loss of 3,000 lives on 9/11 was a trauma to the United States, how much more traumatic is the loss in Iraq of hundreds of thousands due to economic sanctions instigated by the U.S. and Britain? Widespread deaths, in the name of liberation, act as a source of deep anger, and an inspiration for new recruits." This means that the more deadly sanctions are, the more they lead to terrorism – causing a vicious cycle. Sanctions will only lead to more terrorist attacks, which would be responded to, in the negative world, with more sanctions, causing terror and death. Both are undesirable under my value criterion of maximising net benefits. Contention 3: Sanctions that fail lead to war because countries are expected to escalate once sanctions don't work. Lektzian & Sprecher: "The sender nation, designs sanctions in a manner so that they will have minimal costs to themselves. This affects the signaling properties of sanctions and instead of signaling resolve, sends a signal of weakness on the part of the sender, making militarized conflict more likely. When states use sanctions in this manner, they run a greater risk of war because they also generate audience costs that make it more difficult for them to back down. As a result, when a sanction is observed, there is a significantly increased probability that a militarized dispute will also occur." As sanctions lead to war anyway, they are useless in achieving foreign policy objectives. This means that sanctions are worse than just declaring war against the target, in terms of net benefits – because sanctions do not contribute anything else to foreign policy, they just lead to terrorism and death, especially of infants. Overall, there is a new holocaust put in use today, and it is the deadly economic sanctions that do harm to innocent members of society – just like the holocaust. Economic sanctions have destroyed countless numbers of innocent lives and have results that have lead to the killings of countless more. Thus, I affirm.