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

Order is NC, AC. NC: Alternatives to Sanctions 1) Diplomacy: My opponent provides diplomacy as a possible alternative to sanctions. While I do respect him for attempting to present one, there is a fundamental flaw in diplomacy. Just because diplomats can go to foreign countries, does not mean that they have access to every country in the world. This is because we are not friendly with the country due to some reason. Prime Minister Putin of Russia, for instance, would probably not like Americans coming to his country since he strongly blames the US for the war with Georgia (http://www.cnn.com...) 2) Non Economic Sanctions: I concede this alternative as a method of achieving foreign policy goals. However, for the purpose of this debate, we should still argue my opponent's contentions, for they affect what his real-world situation looks like. C1: My opponent criticizes my first contention in a very flawed way. First of all, he says that I am making everyone believe that if sanctions were lifted, those 6 countries I mentioned would resume trafficking efforts. He completely misinterprets the meaning of my contention. The claim I brought up was that we can threaten countries with sanctions if they do not combat trafficking. So if they do not combat trafficking, they get sanctioned and if they do combat trafficking, they will not get sanctioned. Further, I have no idea where he is going with the second paragraph. He says that the international community should address human trafficking. I do agree, but he is yet to explain how they are going to address it. C2: He says I am citing a situation of global proportion. Of course! The resolution does not imply any specific country, so we can talk about any country in the world that has a connection to sanctions. I am not trying to say that Canada is the sole protector of environment-friendly behavior. I even gave an example pertaining Antarctica where phytoplankton has been severely reduced. Since many marine animals rely on phytoplankton for health, biodiversity will decrease. And biodiversity leads to extinction! AC: C1: He clarifies the evidence which I totally respect him for. I do believe that this argument still stands for him in the round. However, I urge voters to look back to my human trafficking and environment contentions. The sanctions that were used in human trafficking successfully brought 6 countries to fight against trafficking (see HumanTrafficking.org evidence). And the sanctions used to prevent environmental damage were at a success rate of 92% (see Drezner evidence). This evidence clearly shows how effective sanctions really are at achieving foreign policy objectives. His evidence simply says that 34% of sanctions have been effective and because of those sanctions from 1914-1990, we shouldn't use them. Once again, look back to the human trafficking and environment contentions. C2: He gives an example of sanctions that were used which were the 1997 sanctions in Iraq and the 2009 sanctions against Gaza. Now, the 1997 sanctions in Iraq were necessary because they entered a war against Kuwait. Secondly, Saddam Hussein was still dictator and the time and obviously we are not going to just stand by and watch a dictator obliterate another country. For the 2009 sanctions against Gaza, Israel issued those sanctions because Gaza launched a rocket as a means to attack Israel. Of course Israel is going to sanction them if they pose a threat. C3: Okay, I accept that my opponent says it is common sense. Now, with his international free trade argument, just because sanctions interrupt free trade partially, that does not stop the entire flow of free trade. If the Philippines stop flow of free trade to Kenya, Kenya can still trade with other countries. Also, once again, I urge voters to look back at my environment and trafficking contentions. In my opponent's world, we have no sanctions and we let the environment get damaged, destroy the marine food chain, and let victims succumb to trafficking crimes. So I please urge you to favor me on this contention argument. C4: My opponent is completely mistaken on this contention. He gives his example of the United States and Spain, which I completely praise him for trying. However, just because the U.S. sanctions Spain, that does not mean they will get sanctioned by other countries. In other words, just because some guy attacks me, that does not mean that anybody else will. And even if he wants to show his example to be true, he does not even have evidence to show that all countries would participate in such a sanction against Spain (or some other country that does not have to be Spain). So for all the arguments and rebuttals I have given against my opponent, I firmly urge voters to please vote Negative/Con because my opponent's real-world situation is a disaster where marine animals die and where people die due to human trafficking. Thus, please negate and vote Neg/Con.