Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

Response to Cross-Ex: 1. According to Locke, governments are created to protect the natural rights of people. Government legitimacy is important because it guarantees people their natural rights—those of life, liberty, and property, which are essential to humankind. I'm unsure as to what my opponent intends for me to answer with the question "what about natural rights?" Natural rights as postulated by Locke are the rights to life, liberty, and property. I would also request clarification as to what else my opponent would like me to answer about natural rights. (This question is also rather vaguely worded, so I will do my utmost to answer what I believe my opponent is asking of me.) I intend to argue a qualified negative. While economic sanctions are not always the best method to achieve foreign policy objectives, sanctions (or the threat thereof) should remain an option in a country's foreign policy "toolkit." This type of usage of sanctions, combined with diplomacy and etc., will maximize the preservation of natural rights, which are essential to humanity. 2. In some cases, the use of economic sanctions may not be the best option in achieving foreign policy objectives. As you have said, the Gulf War was a more effective way of ending Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That being said, because economic sanctions are not effective in all cases does not discount their use in some scenarios. 3. I'll address the two questions together, as they seem to be the same. Sanctions have been used in conjunction with diplomacy, for one. In the recent negotiations with North Korea, as shown in Card A for my first contention, sanctions have been levied against North Korea in order to bring diplomats back to the negotiating table. In the case of Iran, sanctions and the threat of sanctions have been used as bargaining tools in their nuclear disarmament program. My Opponent's Case: 1) In the cases that I have provided, my opponent has failed to prove that the stated sanctions violated any individual's right to life. I propose the targeted application of sanctions like those used on North Korea in my first contention, card A. In C1(A), the Banco Delta Asia accounts that were frozen by the US government were used to fund bribes and gifts to Il's cronies. My opponent mistakes my advocacy of the use of sanctions, I believe, for an advocacy of their blanket use. I do believe that if a diplomatic solution can be negotiated without the use of sanctions or the compromise of natural rights, diplomatic avenues of resolution should, by all means, be pursued. However, my opponent has conceded that diplomatic talks may not always work, but does not propose any alternative for cases where talks fail. Let us, for the sake of argument, examine the case of North Korea. It has become rather evident over the past few years that North Korea is a) an unstable regime, b) wishes to have a nuclear weapon, and c) has taken steps towards achieving its goal of nuclear armament. These three factors pose a serious threat to the lives of people living in the United States and other Western nations. The US has engaged in talks with North Korea, but in 2006, those talks stalled. As my opponent has failed to offer any alternative but diplomacy, I shall assume inaction would be the only option remaining. How does allowing an unstable nation to develop weapons that constitute a grave threat to peace and security embody justice? By refusing to use sanctions, my opponent willingly disregards the lives of millions. This is not justice. I rebut my opponent's contention that he increases the quality of life by not imposing sanctions. His contentions attempt to prove that the use of sanctions will downgrade the quality of life, not that their not-use increases it (see above paragraph on inaction). I have shown that in the scheme provided by my opponent, natural rights are not being preserved, but destroyed. My opponent's case fails to uphold justice or government legitimacy. 2. My opponent therefore (I'm inferring, as the answer wasn't an answer to the question asked) says that it would be preferable to allow the continuation of the VIOLATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS by failing to take action. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has directly contradicted his own argument. While he says that he would like to preserve the quality of life by upholding natural rights, he condones—no—advocates their violation. As I have stated in my contentions, the sanctions usage I propose would not kill people—it would do the utmost to spare them. This question is a moot point in the context of my case—there are no lives taken in a well-designed, targeted sanctions like those in C1 A and B cards. I have stated that Iraq represents a situation in which military action was less costly than the use of economic sanctions. I have made no claims that economic sanctions will always be more effective than war, nor vice versa. Nevertheless, the Gulf War is not indicative of a general trend—or if it is, my opponent has not provided any evidence to support that assertion. My Case: To clarify, government legitimacy is my value and the protection of natural rights is my criterion. I have stated my intentions clearly in my response to cross examination. I have debunked my opponent's claim that he is protecting natural rights more than I am. My contentions clearly demonstrate that economic sanctions, when used properly, protect natural rights, thus ensuring government legitimacy. C1: My opponent misunderstands the conception of costly. I wholeheartedly agree that money has no place in Lincoln-Douglas. Costs, however, are not necessarily monetary in nature. I'm sure we can agree that human lives have worth, and loss of life is costly. I do not once refer to "money" in my contention, only to costs. I give you the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of costly: "entailing loss or sacrifice." Thus, the assessment of less costly still stands. The sanctions levied against North Korea and Iran resulted in no loss of life to either party, whereas war would have inevitably resulted in deaths. Although the results may have been the same, it is rather obvious that the use of sanctions is the less costly route. Furthermore, my opponent fails to rebut the core of my contention, which is that well-designed sanctions, in conjunction with other methods, can be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. As such, the use of sanctions does protect natural rights and thus ensure government legitimacy. My contention still stands. C2: I have, in fact, given three pieces of evidence. My card A from the first contention also supports this claim. Sanctions have been used in conjunction with the threat of military force (South Africa) and with diplomacy (North Korea) to achieve tangible results (the end of apartheid and the restart of negotiations, respectively). In negotiations with Iran, the threat of international sanctions is also currently used to persuade Iran to stop developing a nuclear bomb. There has been no direct refutation of my contention, therefore it flows through. I have showed that my opponent's case is flawed and logically unsound. He directly contradicts himself by claiming to protect natural rights while advocating their violation. Furthermore, his plan fails to satisfy the criteria of natural rights, nor does it increase the quality of life. He has failed to rebut either of my contentions, though I have shown that his are not relevant to my case. I have shown that the intelligent, targeted use of economic sanctions can be effective at achieving foreign policy objectives, thereby protecting natural rights, upholding government legitimacy, and enacting justice. I therefore urge you to vote neg. I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate and look forward to his rebuttal and voting issues. Thank you.