The Instigator
cjl
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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 1 vote the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,372 times Debate No: 10809
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

cjl

Con

I wish to go negative. Please use the following format:
Affirmative Constructive 1
Negative Constructive 1/ Rebuttal 1
Affirmative Constructive 2/ Rebuttal 1
Negative Constructive 2 / Rebuttal 2
Affirmative Rebuttal 2
*Please leave the second speech in the first round blank to keep speech order. I will present my case later.
**I will leave the second speech in the fourth round blank to keep the debate real.
Please enter only if you use the above L.D. format and excuse any confusion. I made a rather dumb mistake earlier...sorry.
Use anything at your own discretion! Again, sorry.
Thanks to who accepts and good luck!
Ore_Ele

Pro

I will go ahead and take on this position and hope to have a lot of fun, as well as a good learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1
cjl

Con

"The one permanent emotion of inferior man is fear-fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above all else is safety."
-H. L. Mencken, a prominent newspaperman from 1899-1933
Because I agree with Mr. Mencken, I stand to negate the resolution.
Before I continue, I wish to offer the following definitions in order to clarify my case:
Foreign policy: a set of goals outlining how a country will interact with other countries, from the world politics review
Economic sanctions: domestic penalties applied by one country to another for a variety of reasons, from freetrade.org
Security: a state of being free from danger, from Merriam Webster online dictionary
Ought: used to express an obligation, from Merriam Webster online dictionary
My value for this round will be National Security. My criterion for this round will be utility. Merriam-Webster online defines utility as something useful. If a policy is useful then a government should be able to utilize when necessary. If these sanctions work even sometimes, then governments should be able to use them to protect themselves. Getting rid of economic sanctions because one sanction doesn't work would be like getting rid of all the worlds' computers because one broke, just plain senseless.
We will examine why we need to vote negative through
1st. Economic sanctions do work.
2nd. Economic sanctions by one country can affect the world.
3rd.Multilateral sanctions increase efficiency.
4th. Economic sanctions are better than the alternative, war.
Contention one, economic sanctions do work. According to Economic Sanctions by Franklin Foer, a freelance journalist, even if sanctions don't topple a regime or end terrorism, they provoke economic hardship, and may deter future misbehavior. In other words, these sanctions warn the target country of future consequences, which may be war. These sanctions are a second chance for nations to change their policies. Why deprive those nations of a second chance? We shouldn't.

Contention two, economic sanctions by one country can affect the world. According to bank shots: how the financial system can isolate rogues, by R. Loeffler, in Foreign Affairs magazine, when Washington made it illegal for U.S. banks to relate with North Korea, many countries on a global scale ceased relating with them.
Contention three, multilateral economic sanctions increase efficiency. . According to bank shots: how the financial system can isolate rogues, by R. Loeffler, in Foreign Affairs magazine, when Iran wanted to bank with China, China lessened ties with them, as the U.S. did. With Iran only interacting with Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, and Yemen, Iran only got a minimal amount of money, rather than China's wealth.

Contention four, economic sanctions are better than the alternative, war. We all know war can be devastating to many people, so why not prevent it if possible? We can by allowing target nations the second chance economic sanctions offer. By going to all-out war, we deny target nations a second chance.

Overall, in my case, not only is the implementing nation secure from the threat, but we are being fair to the target nation by giving them a second chance, and allowing economic sanctions to serve their purpose: to change offensive policies and to attempt to prevent war.
Ore_Ele

Pro

The importance of economic sanctions is something that governments seem to enjoy trying against our foes with no success.

While it is true that if a sanction fails just once, that is not reason to scrap the entire process (with your computer analogy), but so true is the opposite, if works once but fails countless times, it is not worth keeping. Such as if you have a car that starts only once every several weeks, even though it does sometimes start. So the question is do the benefits from economic sanctions justify its use, or do the consequences it causes strike it from the table?

--Contention 1, Economic sanctions do work--

Economic sanctions may have seemed to have been a useful tool in the past. However a closer look into them shows that they are quite impotent. Drezner (2003) looked into US sanctions from 1975 - 1994 and found that when threatened with sanctions (but without the sanctions actually being imposed), the THREAT had a 56.34% success rate, as opposed to the only 33% success rate of actual sanction use [1]. That means that threatening to impose sanctions (but not actually doing it) is more effective then actually doing it. In sanctions regarding labour standards, the threats (without actually doing sanctions) was 57.69% (1988 - 2000), but of the sanctions that were actually imposed, "no significant concessions had been made in any of these cases [1]." On another similar note, sanctions in regards to environmental regulations found that the threats yielded a 92.11% chance of success, while actual sanctions yielded only a 52.63%, once again, the sanctions proved to be horribly under par compared to the threat of sanctions.

--Contention 2, Economic sanctions by one country can affect the world--

There is little doubt that it can effect the world. It effects everyone, including us. When we decided that we are not going buy product X from one country, that effects the supply for said product. When the supply goes down, the cost for us goes up. Likewise, the for the country being sanctioned, the demand goes down, meaning they must sell the item for less, hurting them. What ends up resulting is the country doing the sanctioning (or group of countries) end up paying more for product X and the country receiving the sanctioning has to sell product X for less. The only nations that benefit from the economic sanction are those that are not participating in it, since (if they import product X) they now get to buy it for less, or (if they export product X) they now get to sell it for more.

--Contention 3, Multilateral sanctions increase efficiency--

That is also correct, and like wise, they increase efficiency of the same issues presented in contention 2, the effect of supply and demand.

--Contention 4, they are better then the alternative, war--

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. War is not the only alternative, there are a multitude of alternatives. In cases where there is normally a good standing relationship, a positive trade deal (make offerings, rather then threats). In the nations where we have less then friendly standings a positive trade deal will not work (not likely, though it is always worth a try to better international goodwill), and those are actually the nations that are least likely to respond to sanctions anyway [2]. For example, North Korea and Iran aren't exactly letting their nuclear programs get shut down as we are wanting. The whole time, they don't mind so much letting their people suffer from any sanctions because it works as fuel to them to call us the bad guys.

[1] http://www.ima.org.uk...
[2] http://www.google.com...= (first link, will download the pdf file)
Debate Round No. 2
cjl

Con

Thank you for the acceptance of this debate.
*My opponent seems to think that if merely threaten to use the sanctions, then that would be enough to make the target nation change their offensive policies? My question here is what will we do if the threat fails? I guess, war, which is not at all good.
**Towards the end of his attacks he states that war is not the best alternative, implying that there are other alternatives. For that, he states a positive trade deal. I guess I do not understand why we would want to trade with the target nation. That would defeat the reason we want to enforce e.s. in the first place, to show them that their policies are offensive. Besides this, what could we offer that would want, to convince them to change their policies? ***Also, he is yet to attack the fact that these sanctions act as second chance for the target nation.
****To refute his 2nd and third contention attacks, he seems to forget that target sanctions work differently than regular sanctions. According to "Targeted sanctions: Motivating Policy change, by Kaempfer and Lowenberg, in the Harvard International Review, "Targeted sanctions can impact a countries ability implement the objectionable policy. Technological and military goods are frequently necessary for targets to pursue those objectionable policies. These targeted sanctions restrict the ability of the target nation to get these goods. This worked in India and Pakistan to delay those countries production of nuclear weapons for decades." As the above shows, if sanctions work at all in any way, why should we not be able to use them? We should. To ban them all because one doesn't work, would be like banning all cars because one breaks down, SENSELESS!!! He uses the counter-logic that "While it is true that if a sanction fails just once, that is not reason to scrap the entire process (with your computer analogy), but so true is the opposite, if works once but fails countless times, it is not worth keeping. Such as if you have a car that starts only once every several weeks, even though it does sometimes start. So the question is do the benefits from economic sanctions justify its use, or do the consequences it causes strike it from the table?". To this I say obviously some of the parts are useful, so why not save the car for parts to another?
*****As I have shown, if one works then there is no reason to ban them all, even if they work once in a great blue moon. That blue moon might be the time they work and the time we really need them.
******"Economic sanctions may have seemed to have been a useful tool in the past. However a closer look into them shows that they are quite impotent. Drezner (2003) looked into US sanctions from 1975 - 1994 and found that when threatened with sanctions (but without the sanctions actually being imposed), the THREAT had a 56.34% success rate, as opposed to the only 33% success rate of actual sanction use [1]." This only cements my argument that if they work at all, then we should be able to use them.
~Given my opponent has presented no case to give us reasons to affirm, and that I have proved why we should negate, me must negate resolution.

Thanks again to my opponent and good luck in voting!

VOTE NEGATIVE(CON)!!!
Ore_Ele

Pro

My first case in point that I would like to make, is in regards to the accuracy of con's source in regards to the sanctions on India and Pakistan. The source claims "This worked in India and Pakistan to delay those countries production of nuclear weapons for decades." however sanctions did not stop or delay the nuclear programs of either nation. The sanctions in Pakistan were lifted in 1981 (only 7 years after the start of their nuclear program) and money was being given to them because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan [2]. Aid continued to go to Pakistan until 1990, when it was canceled due to the Presser amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 61 [1]. Pakistan then tested 5 nuclear devices in 1998 (though they claimed they reached nuclear as soon as 1987, but that was never confirmed). So after 24 years of the nuclear program, they were under sanctions for only 7 years (74 - 81) and were receiving aid for 9 years (81 - 90). On an after note, after the 98' confirmed test, sanctions were again imposed, only to be removed again in 01'. Also, given that it is expected for nations with no previous nuclear infrastructure to take about 15 years to research, train, build, and gather material [3]. though the report says specifically that they can take more or less. Heck even high technology nations, such as Japan, would take a few years to be ready.

These examples also point out another weakness with the sanctions. China helped out Pakistan a lot. And nations that express hostility towards us use our sanctions to rally support (such as Cuba), which can actually make the situation worse.

My opponent stated "I guess I do not understand why we would want to trade with the target nation. That would defeat the reason we want to enforce e.s. in the first place, to show them that their policies are offensive." Quite the opposite. We often do this for many nations. In reference to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, we are able to provide assistance to nations so long as they maintain certain standards. We provide assistance to Pakistan so that they help with the war on terror. We also provide open trade to different nations so long as they make sure that their economic policies and social polices are beneficial to their people. That is how we use positive enforcement to get other nations to do what we want. Call it bribing if you want, but it works better and more often then threatening.

I have not attacked the second chance statement, because there is no need to. Anything can be a second chance (or third or forth) other then total destruction. An economic sanction can be a 2nd chance, so can wagging your finger at them, or gathering military forces around their borders, or anything. So it is a true statement, but it is not important to this debate.

I agree that if the car never start, you can tear it apart and reuse what good parts you can, and so we can tear apart the idea of economic sanctions and scarp it to other ideas that actually do work. But that is going to literal in the example. A different example would be if birth control worked 1/1000 times, would you still use it? what if it was 1/100 or 1/10 or even 1/3? Well, maybe, in conjunction with something more effective. But now, what if that 1/3 birth control also cost a lot of money for those results, would you use it? No. The fact is that Economic Sanctions work rarely and with only minimal results. As my opponent said "...if one works then there is no reason to ban them all, even if they work once in a great blue moon." I would agree with that, if they didn't negatively effect us each time we try to use them.

Economic Sanctions are something that costs too much and works too little and too rarely for it to be anything close to a viable option. I have already shown how economic sanctions hurt us, the people using them, as well as the other country. My opponent choose not to argue against that because I can only assume that there is no arguing it. If they were free and without consequences, such as diplomatic talks (well, even those have costs and consequences, but they are quite minimal on the global scale), but they don't they effect our economy, which only comes back and effects the people.

[1] http://fpc.state.gov...
[2] http://www.fas.org...
[3] http://www.lanl.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
cjl

Con

Again, thanks. I will defend my case, move to opponents, then to voting issues.
_________________________________
*I do not understand why my opponent feels no need to attack my second chance point. To state this, he implies that he agrees with me on that point. Besides this, why not give them a second chance? We should. War is not a second chance. He needs to state the benefits of affirmation for us to affirm, something he is yet to do.
**Moving to his attacks on my sources in the first part of his second speech, evidence? I am not familiar with what you are saying.
***He pretty much states that my examples are in effective. However, see the truth. If they work IN ANY WAY OR TIME FRAME, why should we not use them? We should, seeing that they do. my opponent stated "My opponent stated "I guess I do not understand why we would want to trade with the target nation. That would defeat the reason we want to enforce e.s. in the first place, to show them that their policies are offensive." Quite the opposite. We often do this for many nations. In reference to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, we are able to provide assistance to nations so long as they maintain certain standards. We provide assistance to Pakistan so that they help with the war on terror. We also provide open trade to different nations so long as they make sure that their economic policies and social polices are beneficial to their people. That is how we use positive enforcement to get other nations to do what we want. Call it bribing if you want, but it works better and more often then threatening." Thanks for making my case!
****Ok, with the re-use of cars example, I was saying that we could go from regular e.s. to targeted or smart e.s.
*****"As my opponent said "...if one works then there is no reason to ban them all, even if they work once in a great blue moon." I would agree with that, if they didn't negatively effect us each time we try to use them." Nice job not using the full statement. And I have shown that they do work.
******"Economic Sanctions are something that costs too much and works too little and too rarely for it to be anything close to a viable option. I have already shown how economic sanctions hurt us, the people using them, as well as the other country. My opponent choose not to argue against that because I can only assume that there is no arguing it. If they were free and without consequences, such as diplomatic talks (well, even those have costs and consequences, but they are quite minimal on the global scale), but they don't they effect our economy, which only comes back and effects the people." I NEVER said it was going to be easy. but if they work, then it is worth the effort.
____________________________________________
Moving to my opponents case, there is not one, so no reason to affirm.
______________________________________________
Voting Issues:
*We have no affirmative case to examine.
**I have defended my case, so the negative remains upheld, while there is no affirmative to uphold.
Ore_Ele

Pro

**the opening said, "I will leave the second speech in the fourth round blank to keep the debate real." however the second speech is mine and not my opponents, and so I am not sure as to if I should leave this message blank or not. So I will only make a minimal post and if it was suppose to remain blank, please ignore it. Thank you**

My opponent has nothing to defend against my case, that sanctions work so rarely and are always negatively effecting us (via supply and demand theory, as pointed out earlier), that there is no reason to keep using them. My opponent's only response to this is "...my opponent has presented no case..." he even makes my case. Agreeing that sanctions work rarely, "...once in a great blue moon" as he put it and he also admits that he knows they cost us and present hardship for our people with, "I NEVER said it was going to be easy."

So to summarize...

1) They rarely work, "once in a great blue moon." my opponent agrees.
2) They always negatively effect us (via price theory, supply and demand), sometimes worse then others. My opponent agrees.

so why are we using something that always hurts us and only works rarely and produces minimal results? The only logical answer is that we shouldn't.

**again, if this was suppose to be left blank, please ignore this post**
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
while I am happy that I'm winning my first debate, I'm sad that only 1 person has voted.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Regardless as how to the voting turns out. I would like to thank cjl for a wonderful first debate and look forward to more debates with him in the future.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I voted PRO in sources. CON's were substandard, such as paraphrasing a freelance journalist's article as some athoritative statement about sanctions.

I also voted PRO in arguments.
Sanctions don't work often. Sanctions do help our enemies often.
I'm not sure how to weigh achieving foreign polict objectives vs. benefitting the economies of enemy countries on a magnitude level, and it wasn't done in the round, so I voted PRO on the far higher probability of harm.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Dang it, I thought I was taking the con side... oh well, DA we go.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Nevermind, I remember. Just didn't catch it at first.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
What is LD format?
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Oh, for those of you wondering about the names of the speeches...we call them constructive because you construct your speech, as that is the purpose of that speech. We call the others rebuttals because of the attacking you do on your opponents case, whether you are aff or neg. The ones with both rebuttal and constructive involve both. That is what I learned from my coaches. But, hopefully that helps to make a few clarifications on those names.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Ok a made a very, very absent-minded mistake. Now I fixed it. Sorry.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah... That clearly is not LD format.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
"Negative Construction 2"

Gee when did they switch the LD format I'm new to this strange policy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
cjlOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05