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

Based on the resolution, and the format of my opponents case, I presume this will be debated in an Lincoln-Douglas format, and hope voting will be based around that premise. I will begin by presenting my own case, and then rebut my opponents. I negate the resolved, that "economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives". The resolution uses the term ought, which indicates that an obligation exists to not use economic sanctions. Because every person has different obligations, and to different people, we need to determine whose obligations we are discussing. Because the actor in the resolution is a state, it must be the state who has an obligation regarding economic sanctions. We therefore need to analyze the obligations of the state, to determine if they prohibit economic sanctions. Because a state is considered illegitimate when it violates its obligations, my value is governmental legitimacy. The obligations of a state are outlined in the social contract. John Locke explains the basic tenets of the contract "Whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any common-wealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people. " Given that the obligations of a state are to its citizens and only to its citizens, the effect of economic sanctions on the obligations of the state must be evaluated in terms of the impact on the citizens. Because the ultimate goal of all foreign policy objectives is to secure the safety of the citizenry, either directly, or by advancing their interests, my value criterion is maximizing the safety of citizens. Observation 1: The affirmative must show that there is an obligation to never use economic sanctions. Simply demonstrating that some sanctions have been poorly implemented is not a justification of the total banning of sanctions. Contention 1: Economic sanctions can increase the safety of citizens. Subpoint A: Economic sanctions deny weapons to military threats and undercut dangerous regimes. By limiting the resources entering and exiting a given country, economic sanctions reduce the possibility of a military buildup, particularly in the area of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. David Cortright and George Lopez write "Most analysts argued prior to the Iraq war -- and, in many cases, continue to argue -- that sanctions were a failure. In reality, however, the system of containment that sanctions cemented did much to erode Iraqi military capabilities. Sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring and won concessions from Baghdad on political issues such as the border dispute with Kuwait. They also drastically reduced the revenue available to Saddam, prevented the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War, and blocked the import of vital materials and technologies for producing WMD[s]. The unique synergy of sanctions and inspections thus eroded Iraq's weapons programs and constrained its military capabilities. The renewed UN resolve demonstrated by the Security Council's approval of a "smart" sanctions package in May 2002 showed that the system could continue to contain and deter Saddam. Unfortunately, only when U. S. troops invaded in March 2003 did these successes become clear: the Iraqi military that confronted them had, in the previous twelve years, been decimated by the strategy of containment that the Bush administration had called a failure in order to justify war in the first place. " By removing access to revenue and material, the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq drastically reduced its war making capabilities. Cortright and Lopez give further examples "In Cambodia, sanctions, combined with UN peacekeeping and election assistance isolated the Khmer Rouge and effected a democratic transition in an atmosphere of internal peace. In the Yugoslavia wars, sanctions exerted effective bargaining leverage to convince Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to moderate his war aims in Bosnia and pursue negotiations that led to the Dayton peace accords. And the more targeted financial sanctions imposed after the Kosovo war no doubt contributed to the demise of support for Milosevic in the elections of October that have replaced him. In Libya, sanctions contributed to a settlement of the dispute over the trial of terrorists suspected of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. According to the U. S. State Department, they persuaded the Quaddafi regime to reduce its support for international terrorism. " Sanctions, therefore, are a useful tool in the diplomatic toolkit, and one which can increase the safety of a nations citizenry. Therefore, the use of sanctions should not be banned, because they can help protect citizens, by limiting the danger posed by a militaristic enemy, and thus enable a nation to uphold its obligations to its citizens, and therefore maintain its legitimacy as a government. I will now address my opponents case ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Starting with the value debate. My opponent provides no link between justice and the resolution, and does not explain how upholding justice proves the resolution true. I, on the other hand, do. We should therefore prefer my value. My opponent does not provide a link between human rights and justice, or explain how upholding human rights upholds justice. We should therefore use my value criterion because it links to the value. C-1: 1: No impact. My opponent never indicates how sanctions damage human rights, other than saying that they "have a history of ineffectiveness". This does not indicate harm to human rights. Neither does "sanctions being imposed for reasons other than what they were declared". 2: Disproven. Human rights do not have a history of ineffectiveness. As demonstrated by my second quote from Cortright and Lopez, they have been used effectively many times. C-2: 1: The intended targets are the citizens. 2: No demonstration of damage to human rights. Simply saying that citizens are being harmed by sanctions does not indicate human rights are being harmed. C-3 1: I accept that sanctions do harm the sanctioning country somewhat. 2: I would like my opponent to provide examples or evidence that sanctions create resentment. There is nothing forcing nations to chose one side or the other, and even if there were, that occurs with any international issue. Nothing about sanctions is unique in that respect. 3: "Resentment" is not a violation of human rights. There is no impact here. In conclusion, economic sanctions are useful and effective diplomatic tools. My opponent has not shown them to be damaging to human rights, while I have shown them to be helpful in keeping citizenry safe. I eagerly await my opponents response.