The Instigator
dartmouthlder
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Narwal19
Pro (for)
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: 2/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 11086
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

dartmouthlder

Con

I'd like to do this in Lincoln-Douglas form, minus the C-X. So with that being said, I'll await for an affirmativer competitor to start the round. Thanks in advanced for making this a worthwile debate.
Narwal19

Pro

Thank you for starting this . I do apologize that I have not done this type of debate for a year so please bear with me. Thanks.

I affirm.

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

Definitions:
Economic Sanctions: Internationally, restrictions upon trade and financial dealings that a country imposes upon another for political reasons, usually as punishment for following policies of which the sanctioning country disapproves.
ought: moral obligation to do something
not be used- should not be
achieve-do something for the greater good
foreign policy objectives-peace, stablity, and human welfare

Observations:
1. Because this is a universal topic we will discuss it in broad terms.
2. Economic sanctions will be debated on its execution and result, because this shows the goals and what the action has achieved.

V: I value humanitarianism. Peace is top priority in governments. Without the satisfaction of citizens, governments crumble through rebellions. When citizens are satisfied with the government we close to achieving peace because there are not major social unrest. The Declaration of Independence states life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Actions taken to strip humans of these rights are considered unjustified because this destroys the meaning and morality of humanity.

VC: Free trade is my value criterion. Free trade promotes the economy that in turn gives stability to the government that in turns promotes human welfare. Not only does free trade promote welfare but it also spreads democracy through soft power and in turn promotes human welfare. Take the Muslim's early expansion, the religion was spread mostly through trade. Economic sanctions restricts trade and in turn restricts human welfare.

Contention 1: Economic sanctions weaken the a country's economy especially the one issuing a sanction. By closing trade to any country due to some political reasons you're losing a consumer and in turn your economy weakens. This not only applies to one country but many. And as you can see a well weakened economy results in what we are now, many jobless, strict or closing welfare programs, and an unstable government for the people. And because the government is losing money they begin to cut back on welfare programs and education. This deteriorates human welfare. In CA we are experiencing a decrease in senior homes. Take the example of Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act, British impressment has caused Jefferson to completely stop trade. The result? The economy plummeted drastically. Impact: Economic sanctions weaken a country's power to improve human welfare.

Contention 2: Economic sanctions are unjustified in the way a country cuts trade because the opposing party doesn't agree to their terms. This is unjustified in the way of absolute dominance and harming the innocent. This is simply pushing innocents around to gain what they desire. This will lead to a rebellion. Take the Cold War as an example, Russia and the US disagree on communism and democracy and are arming neutral countries to fight and banning sales of arms to enemies. In the end allied countries evolved into groups like the Talibans. In the end they turn on us after realizing they were pawns of the war. We are screwed and fight back, this leads us into present day War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Impact: As a country cuts trade from many due to disagreements of political terms they cause instability, enemies, and deaths. So again free trade may change views.

Contention 3: Economic sanctions destroys the right of free trade between powerful countries such as China and US. Free trade promotes an increase in the economy, that in turn promotes human welfare through government regulations. The economy and politics for some odd reasons entwine. So if politics disagrees between two countries and eventually lead to an economic sanction, then the trade and income between the countries decrease over time into a depression and government standards are relieved then this leads to a decrease in human welfare. Impact: Free trade promotes human welfare and economic sanctions degrades human welfare.

Contention 4: Economic sanctions will cause grudges and degrade soft power and ultimately human welfare.
"When governments impose sanctions, the officials implementing the policy want to harm the dictator or bad guy heading the other country's government. That's the goal. What they do to achieve it is intentionally harm many innocent people in those countries by cutting them off—if the sanctions are effective—from food, medicine, and other goods that they need or value. "
Overall in the end of the oppression they will lash out and cause harm. We are only bottling up the anger of the opposing countries' citizens. So by trading freely with opposing countries we are able to spread our ideas, much like how the Muslims spread theirs during their early days. Impact: This will cause more harm than good.

Sources:
http://books.google.com...

http://www.hoover.org...

http://www.globalpolicy.org...

http://csburks.com...

http://econlog.econlib.org...

Thank you and I await your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
dartmouthlder

Con

I agree with my opponent's definitions and observations.
AV: Humanitarianism
My opponent claims that peace is the top priority of governments and by using humanitarianism, you can achieve peace.Cuba, which is run by the Castro Regime, has been regarded by the Int'lCommunity as a nation that is radical when making decisions- ruled by a tyrant, the Cuban Government is easily infiltrated, and in short corrupt.The Cuban Government has no interest in peace- their only interest is their own benefit.Just because many governments prioritize peace, does not mean all governments do the same.Furthermore humanitarian efforts are hindered by affirming the resolution because by not imposing economic sanctions how do we achieve Foreign Policy Objectives (FPOs) that help the humanitarian efforts on foreign soil? When you affirm the resolution, you take out the option of using Economic Sanctions as a way to achieve that, so what are we left with to achieve FPOs? Warfare? Inaction? Diplomacy? All of these options hinder humanitarian efforts and cause a great deal of damage.Warfare of course results in bloodshed... I'm sorry, but have you ever heard of a humane war?
AVC:Free Trade- I agree, that free trade does promote the economy, however, imposing economic sanctions also have the ability to achieve the same thing.When a nation imposes a sanc, the sanctioned country thus is hard pressed to turn to other nations in the intl community to seek new allies or new nations to trade with.Ec Sancs increase independence within the nation that is sanctioned- they make them look at their resources, and ask themselves what they have to offer the rest of the world thus promoting new international relationships. As far as free trade tying into creating stability, which translates into a government who values wellfare, I fail to see this link.Many times a nation may have a stable economy, but might not value or increase wellfare efforts.I fail to see how by not imposing ec sancs how wellfare is preserved?Sancs are easy remedies to turn to in order to find a solvency that is able to protect the intl community from potential harm, to increase &prevent the hindering of humanitarian efforts in the imposed nation and to ultimately lay a foundation where the wellfare of a nation can prosper.How do sanctions decrease wellfare Because free trade is limited? Well in some instances, free trade is not applicable.Free trade may be relevant to many industrialized nations, but as far as third world countries who lack the necessities to survive in a global economy, free trade is not apparent, nor does it increase democracy, wellfare, or stability. An aside- as my opponent knows democracy is not the only sort of government that is present in the world today, so why would a nation like Angola, want to participate in free trade which hinders their form of Gov't and instead, pushes the idea of democracy onto them?
the ENTIRE point of an ecc sanc is to put the sanctioned nation at a disadvantage.Sanctions are intended as ec punishments which restrict the sanctioned nation's economy.That's what a sanc is designed to do.
AC1-Ec sancs weaken the a country's economy especially the one issuing a sanc. sancs are designed to weaken the sanctioned nation's economy- that's the whole point, and as far as weakening the sending nation's economy, that is the price that they must be willing to pay.I mean afterall, is their a price to human life?W/out sanctions, civillians in the sanctioned nation, will continue to suffer & die, & over time, the intl community could also experience the same thing.Human wellfare is weakened by not imposing economic sanctions especially when needed rather than by imposing sanctions & suffering a .1% annual decrease in revenue.
AC2-Ec sancs are unjustified in the way a country cuts trade because the opposing party doesn't agree to their terms.Sancs are imposed when they have a reason.My opponent says that the reason why sancs are imposed and happen to be unjust is because the sanctioned nation disagrees with the sanctioning nation.I feel a sanc that is imposed because of that sole reason would be an unsuccessful sanc but sancs that are imposed to increase humanitarian efforts to end a corrupt regime to change a F.P. for the good of the INT'L community & of the citizens of the sanctioned nation are all legitimate reasons to impose sanctions.My opp uses the example of the Cold War with Russia & the US disagreeing about communism & democracy & how the parties involved almost evolved into groups like the Taliban.I fail to see the relevance to the debate @hand.Free trade rather than being the solution in this instance was the problem.It did not increase wellfare it decreased it & ec sancs often have the opposite effect.Ec Sancs are the pacifist approach to achieving FPOs rather than turn to war which in short leads to turmoil, & puts the economy in a deterring situation when it shouldn't be.
AC3-Ec sancs destroys the right of free trade between powerful countries such as China & US. I agree that the US & China are powerful.In someways though ec sancs are used as checks & balances when regarding two powerful nations like China & the US.I see why my opponent uses these examples-if the US was sanctioned by China not only would the US be unable to obtain goods from China but vice versa.This however would not be the end of the world.They have other allies.When imposing a sanc the nations involved know that free trade is no longer an option when dealing with the other nation- but again, that's the whole point of a sanction- Free trade is not destroyed because of a sanction, its simply put on hold.
AC4-Ec sancs will cause grudges and degrade soft power and ultimately human welfare.A grudge won't get the sanctioned nation far.Over time, these grudges will be diminished, and normalized relations will be reached.My opponent says more harm than good will be the byproduct, however, even though that's what it may seem like at first doesn't mean that's how it would play out.Human wellfare would be jeopardized when sanctions aren't imposed.If a sanction is imposed, the people who hold the grudge would be the gov't of the sanctioned country- the people, the civillians, would over all, benefit from the sanc, thus putting them at an advantage to end the oppression from their tyranical gov't.Sancs in the long run cause more good than they do harm and grudges will diminish if they are held because over time the sanctioned nation will realize that the grudge is more detrimental to them, than it is to the sanctioning nation.
My value for this round is n'tl security.The gov't is obliged to take action in this debate.A government always looks to its own security as the paramount value albeit, we should as well.Also, national security is needed for nations to exist, and without nations, we goback to the lawless state of nature without rights protection.
VC: Realism.-Realism is the idea that there are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must be ever aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the prblms that arise.
C1:Ec sancs are effective both by themselves, and w/additional aid (ie: diplomacy, and other building blocks) and they can be used for the betterment of the sanctioned nation. Sanctions in Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Libya, Angola, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Russia and Poland have succeeded.
sanc's in angola proved to be effective regarding the lockerbie bombing.they settled @ 2.7bill $'s, and promised to stop the making of nuc. weapons, relations normalized, and angola gained a seat on the UN security council. the wellfare of the angolan society was bettered and nt'l security achieved.
C2: alternatives to ec sancs are ineffective, immoral, & unjust. inaction, warfare, and diplomacy fail or do not preserve wellfare/ntlsecurity. inaction is immoral- warfare- unjust, and diplomacy- too weak
Narwal19

Pro

I have a load of work to do and I've forgot about this debate, so I'll post my rebuttals in R3. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.
Debate Round No. 2
dartmouthlder

Con

dartmouthlder forfeited this round.
Narwal19

Pro

Narwal19 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dartmouthlder

Con

hi narwal- i'm sorry about this, but i really have to study for Ac. Decathlon and I have no time to respond to your rebuttals, if its okay, I will in a day or two through the comment section just so we can continue the trend. Haha, well anyway, cheers!
Narwal19

Pro

Narwal19 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Narwal19 6 years ago
Narwal19
I'm also sorry for forfeiting the last round due to school issues. But the debate will continue! Good luck!
Posted by Narwal19 6 years ago
Narwal19
Con's case:
V: National Security. Pro's value is peace. Con's value is a value criterion of peace. Why? Because the peace can be achieved thru strong national security and people feel secure.
VC: Realism is a very weak link to V. Realism is a universal ideal in saying taking any pragmatic action that seems to work. Realism cannot be used to achieve V because we need to be ready to defend ourselves in advance. If the U.S simply defends itself on the spot without any preparation we will lose our world power.
C1. Economic sanctions are ineffective in achieving national security. By trading with the enemy they are slowly influencing the U.S and gaining physical and mental strength, like Islam during its early days. It is like trying to feed a snake that's ready to strike. The Angola issue is bribery not economic sanctions, this case has no relation. Economic sanctions does not achieve our policy objectives.
C2.
A. As long as we remain neutral we are fine. If we do being to take sides we will lose more men, money, and morale. We armed the Talibans in the Cold War and now we're fighting them. Should be continue to send supplies? The issue with conflicting countries will eventually be resolved, countries added into the fight only postpones peace. It is the survival to the fittest.
B. Diplomacy is a soft power. Like water overcoming rock diplomacy will overthrow tyranny. Eventually diplomacy will work. For example U.S' ideal of government is copied throughout Europe through diplomacy, slowly it has spread throughout the world. Why has non-violent protests won government policies? Because of diplomacy.
C. I'll like to remind the readers Pro is not here to impose alternatives.
In some cases war is justified. War may be costly but it is used as the last resort to bring order, thus there are fewer human losses. War or troop deployment is necessary to maintain order and guard U.S economic interests. Therefore military action is used to maintain foreign policy objecti
Posted by Narwal19 6 years ago
Narwal19
If you don't mind I'll like to post rebuttals in the comments.
Posted by dartmouthlder 6 years ago
dartmouthlder
hy limit our tools and options when it comes to solving our problems with other nations? Upping the death-toll is in nobodies interest, and besides the fact that millions of lives are often lost because of warfare that is unjustified, warfare is unpopular in the international community- it's costly, and it really is too dramatic. By imposing military action, rather than an economic sanction, do we really expect to achieve our foreign policy objectives when we prove to be incompetent when coming up with alternatives?

Sources:
http://www.heritage.org...

http://www.crosscurrents.org...

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

http://www.fas.org...

I apologize in advance Narwal- I condensed my attacks on your case as much as I could and I feel bad putting the rest of my case on comments, but I felt pressed for time! I'm sorry again, and hope you understand.
Posted by dartmouthlder 6 years ago
dartmouthlder
I apologize for my shortened 2nd Contention. 8,000 characters is too small a number to work with for me. If it's okay, can I extend my case to the comment section along with sources? Thanks!
Sub A:
Inaction is considered immoral, as well as dangerous- by sitting back and watching a nation continuously and consistently disregard what one asks of them only leads to a bad ending. By sitting back, and watching a nation continuously exhibit dangerous and irresponsible behavior, nothing will be changed, and over time, their actions will not become trifle, they will become more and more serious. Inaction leads to more deaths, the endangerment of the international community, as well as possible means for warfare.
Sub B:
Diplomacy is the most obvious alternative, but it‘s weak. It would be ideal if all foreign policy objectives could be met simply through diplomacy but with contradictory interests and opinions this ideal will never be met. Diplomacy is not a reliable alternative, and does not have a successful track record either. Even though diplomatic talks and summit meetings look good on paper does not mean that when used in a real life situation they're the most effective means to achieve foreign policy objectives. Often times, diplomacy only works when there's something else backing it up. When dealing with tyrants, it's unrealistic to presume that they would be upset if we revoked their visas, or blocked their bid on hosting an international prestigious event- like the Olympics that they‘d be effected. If a tyrant can disregard their citizens lives and safety- why would they want to be part of the International community? If anything, what they want, is to be feared, and not to be tampered with.
Sub C:
Military action is the obvious 'hard' alternative to sanctions, but when military action is imposed, bloodshed occurs. Why use military action and pay the consequences in a situation that could easily be remedied with the use of economic sanctions? Wh
Posted by Narwal19 6 years ago
Narwal19
We can have the crossx in the comment section.
Posted by dartmouthlder 6 years ago
dartmouthlder
Oh, well thanks, I'm actually quite a good speller- but I just got a new laptop that is incredibly small which makes it difficult for me to type. Sorry that I've disappointed you with my spelling.
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
con can't spell at all.
Posted by pbplk58 6 years ago
pbplk58
I would take this, but I'm afraid of case-stealers
No votes have been placed for this debate.