Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive Foriegn Policy Objectives

PROGRESSIVE!!!! YES! -- I negate I value Morality. Morality is implicit in the resolution since it is the only way to evaluate the topic, as it is a question of moral obligation. Morality is the framework for decision making of an individual as well as society. The logical corollary of this is that the Justification for actions comes from within the actor's framework for decision-making. Given the lack of specificity in the resolution, we must look towards commonalities, which shape all frameworks, rights become relitive between different cultures and so basing our decisions on the pursuit of certain rights does not shape a universal framework. However all frameworks respect inherent value in human life, in that it is the basis from which all other values stem. Thus the standard is maximizing the protection of human life. I will clarify some framework issues before I begin Second, the negative burden is not to prove that economic sanctions should be used, but rather the sole negative burden is to prove that sanctions are an acceptable foreign policy tool. Because of this I don't need to defend examples of failed sanctions as legitimate, because even the best tool can occasionally break. The Sole contention of the negative case is that Economic Sanctions are key to preventing Iranian non-proliferation. In an age of nuclear proliferation, whichever side minimizes the odds of nuclear detonation should win. Minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation to unstable nations drastically reduces the likelihood of a nuclear war. Thus the impact of preventing Iranian Nuclear proliferation is enormous. Sanctions have been and still are the key to preventing this kind of dangerous proliferation Silvan Shalom, 08 The decision to impose severe sanctions will have a strong, hard impact. Iran is already feeling the pinch of economic pressure. … These decisions, which exert an economic stranglehold, already have caused considerable agitation in the Iranian business community, many of whose members fear that the international sword is now resting on their neck. … Undoubtedly, the sanctions are working… Nevertheless, the alternatives are clear. The military option is problematic, complex and fraught with dangers. Certainly, the report published by the American intelligence community has tied … hands and seriously narrowed his prospects of ordering an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities….. Global resoluteness and tightening sanctions against Tehran will force it to capitulate as well, and to abandon its ambitious program to develop a nuclear bomb. We can't just stand by and put the lives of millions of people at stake based on the assumption nuclear weapons won't be used. Prevention of this possibility is the MOST important issue in the arena of international relations. Affirming means a withdrawal of pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program, this type of appeasement will allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities. Thus the loss of sanctions outweighs every other impact in this round. AND, Iran will use Nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad can't be deterred. Colin Rubenstein 07, Some argue that as the Soviet Union was Iran with nuclear weapons would not employ them there's a key difference. Ahmadinejad is driven by a vision of a world-ending messiah figure, whose reappearance can be brought forward by an apocalyptic event. This is not a man who should be in a position to influence the deployment of nuclear weapons ------- AFF A. Interp. The Aff must defend the whole resolution B. Ground. The Aff attempts to parametricize the resolution C. Standards 1. Ground The Aff is co-opting my ground by denying me reciprocal access to burdens and impact scenarios. HE can affirm by proving one instance leaving me to defend that same scenario and thus forcing me to debate on the affirmatives terms and nothing else. Reciprocity is key to fairness because debate is a competitive activity that requires both Aff and Neg have the ability to win. D. Voter. Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a competitive activity and anything that precludes an objective evaluation of the round ought to be put down. Only voting on direct abuse creates an incentive for bad debate. If debaters know they can just kick the argument and get out of the link to theory they will continue to utilize abusive strategies for the positive time trade-off on theory. Merely rejecting the argument is not enough. FW. 1. There is no time skew. The Neg may have longer rebuttals but the Aff has more of them. The Ability to speak first and last offsets the time skew. AFF C1: 1. Pressure is working – sanctions are draining Iranian banks of currency Con Coughlin, 07, Iran's banks are on the brink of collapse and its manufacturing industries facing severe shortages as sanctions bite", a confidential report submitted to the Iranian parliament said that continued economic isolation was having dire consequences. The sanctions are designed to increase pressure on Teheran to reach a compromise with the UN over its nuclear enrichment programme. The country's banking industry is suffering from a boycott by European, Japanese and American banks, The biggest banks will not conduct any transactions with any Iranian clients, meaning that businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to find hard currency. "There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is now paying the price in economic terms of its defiance of the international community," "The sanctions are having a deeply negative effect on the Iranian economy and there is the prospect of more to come." several opposition politicians openly criticised the government for its handling of the sanctions and the intransigent position it has adopted over negotiations with the UN. C2. 1. TURN. SANCTIONS ARE AN ALTERNATIVE TO WAR AND DIRECT MILITARY INTERVENTION HIMES 1997 As the remaining superpower, the United States can consider military intervention without great risk, yet in the absence of a clear threat to the nation most Americans are increasingly unwilling to support military intervention. Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, each in its own way, illustrates the general uneasiness most U.S. citizens feel about sending troops abroad. Add to this sense of caution the desire of many people to support alternatives to armed conflict, among which is economic sanctions. Economic sanctions are essentially efforts to influence a country's behavior by imposing economic penalties. They can take a variety of forms: imposing embargoes, barring financial transactions, freezing economic assets held abroad, and curtailing trade and foreign aid. 2. Iranian proliferation leads to major wars as a result of rapid proliferation, rising oil prices, terrorist attacks, and lost American hegemony Sokolski, 05 With a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S. and allied action against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the U.S. The objective would be to reduce American support for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, for Israel, and for actions against Iran , and to elevate Iran as an equal to the U.S. An additional aim of Iran's support for terrorism would be to keep other nations from backing U.S. policies, including . military presence in the Middle East. , they would undermine U.S. and allied efforts to foster moderate rule in the Middle East, set into play a series of international competitions that could ultimately result in major wars. 3. Israel wont go on the offensive. They know that they have neighbors that are all hostile and they will use nuclear weapons as a deterrent only. Iran currently has no nuclear weapons and there has been no detonation. This means that the Aff impact here is fatally non-unique. C3 Look to the analysis I gave about Iran being politically unstable. Furthermore look at the negative impacts caused