The Instigator
Messiah
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheWheel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 11963
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Messiah

Pro

I affirm, Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. To clarify the debate, I offer the following definitions:

Economic- Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons.

Achieve- To do; to succeed in doing; accomplish.

Foreign- of concern to or concerning the affairs of other nations (other than your own).

Policy Objective- The Government's high level, intended outcomes for the community.

OBS1- Given the wording of the resolution, the burden of the negative is to prove in every instance that imposing ES (economic sanctions) to achieve a foreign policy objective is morally permissible, or "ought" to be done. If the affirmative either proves in one instance where it is morally impermissible, or if the affirmative gives reasons why it isn't morally permissible, or "ought not" be done, the affirmative will have won the debate.

I value Morality in this round not only because the inherent moral decision in this round, but also because it will be the greatest value to theorize the impacts of imposing economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives. The best standard to achieve this value of morality is Protecting Basic Human Rights. This is the best way to achieve morality in this debate because, and I will go on to prove, ES violate basic human rights. So if negating the resolution opposes morality, affirming the resolution achieves morality through protecting basic human rights.

Contention 1- Economic Sanctions are morally impermissible

A) ES cause "Rally around the Flag" effect.

ES are morally impermissible because they do the exact opposite of the intended result. They actually strengthen rogue regimes by causing a "Rally around the Flag" effect. Reed Wood writes:

"While there is evidence that sanctions increase dissent (Allen 2007; Rowe 2001), rallies are not uncommon in sanctioned states (Cortright and Lopez 2000). By strategically stoking nationalist sentiment the incumbent may successfully shift blame to the sender. This strategy shores up support for the regime and may
permit it to effectively undermine opposition groups (Cortright and Lopez 2000; Galtung 1967). A rally effect therefore would presumably not lead to increased repression, and in fact might lower repression as loyalty to the
regime, and therefore stability increases (Kaempfer, Lowenberg).

B) These "Rogue Regimes" that the Negative is promoting harm basic human rights.

Raymond Tanter writes:

"In the post-Cold War age of a single hegemony--the USA--there has been a rise in what might be called, "rogue states." They are nations that refuse to play by the rules of the game that proscribe state-supported terrorism, proliferation of weapons mass destruction (WMD), and inhumane treatment of their own citizens. As the twentieth century closed, the rogue state phenomena began to yield to the rise of rogue "freelancers," individuals who operate by their own rules and outside state boundaries."

Clearly here we can see that the rogue nations are bad because they don't pay by the rules", but more importantly render "inhumane treatment of their own citizens". Hitler, Castro and Saddam Hussein all have one thing in common. They were spearheads to rogue regimes. Take Hitler, who violated the basic right of life by committing genocide, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Castro, who violated liberty, with a totalitarian dictatorship. Hussein, who violated the right of pursuit of happiness by targeting specific groups of people, and to summarize, not allowing them to be very happy.

In conclusion, you will be affirming today because in the affirmative world, rogue regimes are frowned upon and worked to be gotten rid of, thus achieving morality by protecting basic human rights.
TheWheel

Con

I Negate resolve: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. First I'd like to define the following: Economic Sanctions are, as defined by Businessdictionary.com, "Economic penalties, such as stoppage of trade and financial transactions, imposed upon a country to force compliance with another country's or UN's or WTO's demands." A Foreign Policy is, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states."

My Value Premise is Justice, defined as giving each his fair due, each is due life, liberty and property, however when rights conflict the right to life comes first since it is a perquisite to all other rights, i.e. we must be alive to exercise our rights.

Thus the criterion is minimizing nuclear acquisition. By doing so, it protects other countries from assaults by nuclear warfare, or worse results. Sean D. Murphy warrants:

"The United States has 14,000 small airports and 95,000 miles of unprotected coastline; of the some 16,000,000 cargo containers that reach U.S. shores each year, only five percent are inspected. The idea that an organization such as Al Qaeda may obtain a WMD, smuggle it into the United States on board a container ship and then release or detonate it in a major U.S. city, strikes many analysts as not so much a question of "if" as it is a question of "when."

Other countries besides the US have small airports and unprotected coast line, as such it is paramount that we must prevent the acquisition of WMDs first, before chaos erupts, thus ensuring a protection or rights. In order to meet the criterion I only need to show a risk of decrease in nuclear acquisition which is sufficient to negate, since I'd outweigh on scope since nukes could destroy us all.

First Contention:

Economic Sanctions are successful in causing minimal civilian harm to the targeted states that receive economic blockades, such as embargoes. Thomas G. Weiss helps to explain how:

"Smart sanctions single out groups and individuals responsible for wrongdoing and pinpoint elite needs and desires. With such information, it is possible to fashion policies that frustrate their satisfaction while identifying pro-�‐reform or opposition constituencies within a targeted country and supporting them. In theory, political authorities can craft sanctions that apply pressure on wrongdoers and do not unduly and adversely affect civilian populations or weaken opposition movements. Smart sanctions thus would target better the wealthy and powerful to apply coercive pressure while sparing vulnerable populations. Achieving greater political gain with less civilian pain would clearly enhance multilateral moral credibility. Smarter sanctions include freezing foreign assets, withholding credits and loans, prohibiting investments, and restricting travel, commerce, and communications. One intriguing finding from the IIE is that financial sanctions succeed in 41% of cases versus 25% for trade sanctions, although the result may be discounted as financial sanctions normally follow a general trade embargo."

As explained, we are using the Targeted Sanctions to successfully achieve the Foreign Policy Objectives, and only harm the government responsible for the necessary actions. By using these, we are causing minimal harm to the people, and thus fulfilling my criterion, by minimizing nuclear acquisition by targeting nations who pose a nuclear threat.

Contention 2:

Economic Sanctions cut off countries from acquiring Nuclear Weapons by cutting off resources to the targeted state through embargos and blockades. Abbas Alnasrawi explains the empirical analysis:

"To blunt the double impact of scarcity and inflation the government introduced a food rationing system effective September 1st 1990. The public rationing system saw to it that certain food items-�‐flour, rice, vegetable oil, sugar, tea and baby milk-�‐were provided on a monthly basis at pre-�‐embargo prices. This diet was judged by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to supply on per capita basis 37% of the average calorie intake in 1987-�‐89. The effectiveness of the blockade was so pronounced that in a December 5th 1990 testimony before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations it was reported that the embargo had effectively shut off 90% of Iraq's imports and 97% of its exports and produced serious disruptions to the economy and hardships to the people."

With the economy damaged to such an extent, is thereby fulfilling a major impact, and foreign policy objective – hurt the economy. Also, with the funds reduced by that amount, the major impact of preventing the acquisition of Nuclear Warfare. By achieving my criterion through this, I'm winning the value debate, and saving thousands of lives world-wide that could have been struck by the Foreign Country.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEG Rebuttal:

* OBS1- My opponent is giving an unfair burden on the negative by requiring a universal argumentation, and isn't fair in the rules of the debate. As such, it must only be required by the Negative to prove in my one case how Economic Sanctions are fit.

* Value- "Morality," cannot be seen as the fit value for this round. Due to this being a political matter, and politics, not to mention laws are founded on whether something is equitably "just," or not. Thus, the only choice is the Negative Value of Justice. Even if you don't go on this, look towards the criterion because something being moral, and being just share a similar definition.

* "Basic Human Rights," cannot be looked on as the standard. My opponent is first-off, too vague with their standard. What exactly do Basic Human Rights include? My opponent never states any, so you can therefore use the Negative Standard.

* "Rally around the flag," effect, cannot be supported, as my opponent states in their card, we have no proof that this happens. My opponent's card claims it's not uncommon, but what countries actually had it. Did Sanctions get around it? My opponent is being too vague, and unless they can suffice evidence from a given Country, you must ignore this sub-point, as well as all else that discusses "Rally around the flag," effect.

* "Negative Promoting the Harming of Basic Human Rights," is undoubtedly false. In my case, I stated many times, and even have as the standard, preventing Nuclear Proliferation. My opponent concedes that rogue nations will get the WMDS, which the Sanctions can stop as my case will prove. My opponent's card is otherwise void, as nothing else can be used to say how I'm harming basic human rights. To their explanation, yes they did that. But, Economic Sanctions will remove the ability to kill countless millions with WMDs.

* "rogue regimes are frowned upon and worked to be gotten rid of, thus achieving morality by protecting basic human rights." ... My opponent never truly explains how else, so we cannot truly go on their vague reason to affirm, thus you must go on the only other option, and Negate the given resolution.

I shall allow my opponent to CX if they find something unclear, or anything else - if not, they may give their rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Messiah

Pro

Messiah forfeited this round.
TheWheel

Con

TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Messiah

Pro

Messiah forfeited this round.
TheWheel

Con

TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Messiah

Pro

Messiah forfeited this round.
TheWheel

Con

TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Messiah 6 years ago
Messiah
Sorry, I was crucified
No votes have been placed for this debate.