Negative
AKA: For Economic Sanctions
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” John Mills
OR Senator John Kerry once said “We must retool our nation to prepare for the challenge we already face to maintain our position in the global economy. And this much is certain: America will not have national security without economic security.”
Therefore, I negate the resolution that:
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives
Definitions:
Economic Sanctions- 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. (businessdictionary.com)
Ought- used to express obligation.
Foreign Policy- the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states.
Objectives- : an aim, goal, or end of action.
(In case of argumentation relating to resolve not confined to U.S.A)
Sovereign- one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere.
All unspecified definitions are from Merriam Webster
Core Value: Societal Welfare- What is best for most of society
Value Criterion- The neg shall prevail if I can prove that economic sanctions are a worthwhile method to achieve foreign policy objectives. But the aff shall prevail if, and only if he can prove otherwise……
C1: Smart economic sanctions are needed to compel foreign leaders.
The resolution calls for a general ban on economic sanctions in dealing with foreign policy objectives. One of the foremost arguments against sanctions is the harm they may potentially bring. But these potential harms are mostly caused the imposition of broad, wide-ranging sanctions. But not all sanctions are harmful- there are good sanctions. The sanctions in the 21st century are targeted and narrow, not general. One of the common criticisms of economic sanctions is that they have injured civilian populations in the past. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that there is only one type of sanction to use, and that this type of sanctioning must necessarily hurt civilians. Most countries now understand that wide, indiscriminate sanction use may be counterproductive, so they take a smarter, tailored approach to economic sanctions that make sanctions more likely to achieve their policy objectives. Many countries now tailor their sanctions to specific goods. For example, many countries place specific sanctions on narcotics related items or on materials that could be used to make weapons. These tailored sanctions still allow civilians to meet their basic needs, but also make it so that rogue states are unable to use their material resources to cause further harm. Additionally, economic sanctions are now being used to freeze assets and limit the travel of high ranking state officials, which puts pressure only on them to change their country’s policies. These “smart sanctions” create an opportunity for change without the harms that occurred from past sanctions. Another line of argument for the Neg is the "toolbox" argument: that the Affirmative would remove critical tools, including targeted sanctions, from the government's disposal. This would lead to a second dilemma, this time for the Affirmative: without the carrot and stick of economic sanctions, the government is left with a feather of non-economic sanctions and the bloody spike of war.
