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

Pretty simple: NC, AC. And mostly, I will be pretty straightforward. NC: I negate. The criterion is Achieving Foreign Policy Objectives as it is stated in the resolution. Observation: The affirmative must provide an alternative for achieving foreign policy objectives. Baldwin: "Rational decision making requires the comparative evaluation of policy alternatives; thus any study of economic sanctions that purports to be relevant to the question of whether they should be used must take into account not only sanctions but the alternatives to sanctions. To justify a conclusion that "sanctions are a poor tool of statecraft," it is not enough to describe the disadvantages of sanctions; one must show that some other policy alternative is better. If the choice includes only the options of sinking or swimming, the observation that swimming is a "notoriously poor" way to get from one place to another is not very helpful." Thus, my opponent has a duty to provide an alternative for foreign policy goals. If he or she cannot provide one, then you must negate. I negate for two reasons. First, purging economic sanctions will promote human trafficking. Currently, the US has a policy of sanctioning nations who fail to stop human trafficking, which effectively forces those countries to implement human trafficking policy. US Department of State: "Pursuant to the TVPA, governments of countries on Tier 3 watch list for human trafficking will be subject to certain sanctions, whereby the U.S. Government may withhold humanitarian, trade-related foreign assistance. Consistent with the TVPA, governments subject to sanctions would also face U.S. opposition to assistance from international financial institutions." The imposition of sanctions has empirically caused nations to increase their measures against trafficking. Human-Trafficking.Org: "In 2005, six countries have avoided possible sanctions under the TVPA because of significant steps their governments have taken to fight trafficking. These governments are - Bolivia, Jamaica, Qatar, Sudan, Togo and the United Arab Emirates. These countries took concrete actions to prosecute traffickers, protect victims, and to prevent the crime of trafficking. They increased efforts to identify and rescue trafficking victims, crafted new anti-trafficking legislation and procedures among other significant measures." Thus, sanctions have empirically caused nations to take steps against human trafficking. Without these sanctions, these countries would have no incentive to take a stand. Second, environmental damage becomes indefinite without economic sanctions. Trade restrictions such as the Montreal Protocol have been placed, and worked in the past to limit ozone layer depletion. Brack: "Article 4 of the protocol required that parties ban the import of goods containing CFCs. There is direct evidence that trade provisions were important in persuading the Republic of Korea, which expanded CFC production, but realising the disadvantages of being shut out of Western markets, became a party." Threat and use of economic sanctions to achieve environmental goals has previously been very successful. Drezner : "Exactly half of these sanctions supporting environmental goals terminated at the threat stage. These threats were successful at a rate of 92 percent. The success rate when sanctions were imposed for environmental goals is still impressive (52%). In many cases, the target changed their behavior within a few days of the imposition of sanctions, after realizing that the sender's threat was not a bluff. Ozone layer depletion can already be attributed to 60,000 premature deaths in the year 2000, more is to come. Menne: "Globally, excessive solar UVR exposure has caused the loss of approximately 1.5 million life years and 60,000 premature deaths in the year 2000. Climate change will increase levels of UVR." Ozone depletion decreases biodiversity. IHS: "If ozone depletion is allowed to continue, our food chain will be seriously disrupted. phytoplankton are the base of the marine food chain. In Antarctica, there has been 50 percent ozone depletion causing high amounts of UV-B radiation to harm the productivity of phytoplankton, thereby reducing the food for animals that feed on phytoplankton. A decrease in biodiversity leads to inevitable extinction. Diner: "Human species may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. The loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. As the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. Each new animal or plant extinction could cause total ecosystem collapse and extinction." For these two reasons, I strongly urge a negative vote. AC: V: Since I did not provide my own value, we shall accept that my opponent's value will be the value for the round on both sides. C: Human Rights. I respect my opponent's criterion, however, this criterion actually works against him as I will prove later on and works better for the negative. C1: He says sanctions are unjust because of ineffectiveness and gives evidence from the Heritage Foundation. However, the evidence that 36% of sanctions are effective is a blunt statement. I would disagree with the evidence because if you look at my human trafficking and environment contentions in my NC, you can clearly see that the sanctions have actually prevented environmental damage and Human Trafficking. If sanctions can solve those problems, I do not see how the Heritage evidence can say that 36% of the time, sanctions are effective. Thus, his contention is rebutted. C2: My opponent says that citizens living in sanctioned nations suffer from certain factors of sanctions. However, he fails to point out an example of when this has even occurred. In other words, he fails to give an example of empirical or pragmatic evidence to justify his claim that citizens suffer. Even if he provides evidence in the next round, my contention on human trafficking along with the biodiversity evidence in my speech shows that initiatives will prevent said things from happening as long as sanctions are imposed. Thus, this contention is disregarded. C3: He repeats the same mistake he made in the last contention. Once again, there is no empirical evidence to support his claim that sanctions affect the citizens due to restrictions on free trade. When has there ever been an instance when this has occurred in the real world? My opponent cannot expect his argument to actually matter in the round if it has no empirical warrant? So, this contention falls. C4: My opponent says it's not feasible to impose true sanctions. He then says that countries would have to control everything of the sanctioned nation. It is clear that my opponent has failed to understand what economic sanctions actually are. Sanctions are prohibitions put on restricted goods which means that if the U.S. puts sanctions against Spain, that means that Spain will not receive anything from the States. Nothing goes to Spain so there is nothing to guard in that country. So, this contention goes down. Because I have successfully rebutted all of his contentions, he cannot possibly uphold his criterion of human rights. His criterion is better suited for my side of the debate round because by combating human trafficking and environmental damage, we are upholding human rights by preserving our species. Lastly, if he cannot provide an alternative for achieving foreign policy objectives (refer to Baldwin in my speech), then you must negate. Even so, since all of his contentions are rebutted, I strongly urge you to vote negative.