An analysis of Why Economic Sanctions are bad. Quotes and argument.

Adam Hussain

1-3-10

Affirmative

AKA: Against Economic Sanctions

“Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.” -Immanuel Kent or

Do what is right, though the world may perish. -Immanuel Kent or

(Gordon, Joy. (Professor of Philosophy, Fairfield University). “Ethics and International Affairs.” A Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy: The Ethics of Economic Sanctions.” Pgs. 48-52.)

“Economic sanctions are emerging as one of the major tools of international governance in the post-Cold War era. Sanctions have long been seen as a form of political intervention that does not cause serious human damage, and therefore do not raise pressing ethical questions. However, the nature of sanctions is that they effectively target the most vulnerable and least political sectors of society, and for this reason they must be subject to ethical scrutiny.”

Therefore, I affirm 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: Morality

Value Criterion- Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is the moral principle that behavior should be determined by duty. Kant argued that morality is a standard that applies to the intentions behind an action.

C1: Respect for Residents of Other Nations

Sanctions are used to impose hardships on the residents of a country in order to influence or create change in that country's leadership. That means economic sanctions are using the residents of other nations as a means to achieve their foreign policy goals. The general logic of these sanctions is that cutting a country off from trade will stigmatize the country and starve it for necessary resources. As a result, the rulers of the country will lose legitimacy and eventually their people will overthrow them or the rulers will change their policies. But change is noyguaranteed- the suffering of the people, however is a different story. Rarick, Professor of Management at Barry University, and Duchatelet stated that:

(Rarick, Charles A. (Professor of Management, Barry University), and Martine Duchatelet.

2008. Economic Affairs.

“An Ethical Assessment of the Use of Economic Sanctions as a Tool of Foreign Policy." (Pgs. 48-52.)

“The theory operating behind sanctions is to cause as much pain as possible to the people of a receiving country in order for pressure to be brought on the government. The citizens of the sanctioned country are used as a means to achieve the foreign policy objectives of the sanctioning country.”

Specifically, sanctions in Iraq have created havoc in the social and in the economic environments of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

(Rarick, Charles A. (Professor of Management, Barry University), and Martine Duchatelet.

2008. Economic Affairs.

“An Ethical Assessment of the Use of Economic Sanctions as a Tool of Foreign Policy." (Pgs. 48-52.)

Specifically, sanctions in Iraq have created havoc in the social and in the economic environments of the targeted country for their residents.

To continue with Rarick:

Sanctions in Iraq caused the price of basic food products to greatly increase, resulted in inadequate nutrition, caused a decline of health care, and led to the collapse of the national currency. According to UNICEF, economic sanctions against Iraq resulted in the doubling of the death rate for children less than five years of age. The organization reports that the sanctions made it very difficult for parents to provide needed medicines, food, and safe drinking water for their children, and estimates that they resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children under the age of five between 1991 and 1998.

This shows how much damage sanctions do to the population of a nation.

C2: Respect for the Citizens of One’s Own Nation

Economic sanctions also use one's own residents as a means to the end of foreign policy goals. Economic sanctions declare trade with another country either off limits or more expensive. This reduces one’s own residents’ ability to choose for them with whom they wish to trade. The result is extensive direct costs to trade as residents are forced to cancel contracts or are forbidden to enter into new ones. So basically, the use of economic sanctions harms the economic interests of the nation imposing them without a significant benefit to the nation imposing them. Furthermore, the imposition of sanctions strains ties between the sanction-imposing nations and its allies that do not support the sanction.

A. Sanctions have cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual sales overseas and caused long-term damage to U.S. companies--lost market share and reputations abroad as unreliable suppliers.

B. In...Washington, sanctions have a direct cost for local businesses and their employees. In Washington, wheat and peas grown for export to Iran and Cuba cannot be sold, nor can Boeing sell its planes to other countries because the direct or indirect results of sanctions. This affects many people negatively due to the imposition of sanctions.

C. the US sanctions on Cuba have been condemned yearly since 1992 by the United Nations general assembly as a violation of international law. Such condemnations cause tensions between the US and its allies—the European Union and Mexico, for example.

Economic sanctions basically restrict the set of options that a business person has. It tells a new business that they can not export to Cuba, for example. The restriction is not chosen by the business person - but forces this choice upon them. As a result, economic sanctions use these business people as a means to the end of foreign policy goals.

C3: Ineffectiveness

Historically, economic sanctions have a poor track record. Between 1914 and 1990, various countries imposed economic sanctions in 116 cases. They failed to achieve their stated objectives in 66 percent of those cases and were at best only partially successful in most of the rest. Since 1973, the success ratio for economic sanctions has fallen greatly to 24 percent for all cases.

Another point is that it is difficult to ensure that sanctions hurt where they are supposed to hurt. For example, when sanctions are imposed, the target might reduce their impact by turning to alternative customers or suppliers.

Moreover, the political elite in the target country might be able to pass on the costs of sanctions to other segments of the population. .

Real life examples include the sanctions that have been on Iran since 1979. After the Iranian Revolution, America froze significant assets of Iranian banks, but the increased number of sanctions have equated to the prohibition of all commercial and financial transactions with Iran.

According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, in the medium-term, lifting US sanctions and liberalizing Iran’s economic regime would increase Iran's total trade annually by as much as $61 billion (at the 2005 world oil price of $50/bbl), adding 32 percent to Iran’s GDP. In the oil-and-gas sector, output and exports would expand by 25-to-50 percent (adding 3 percent to world crude oil production). This shows that while the sanctions have a profound effect economically on Iran, it has done nothing for the political aspect. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be entering our 4th decade of having sanctions imposed on Iran. This demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the sanctions.

In conclusion, economic sanctions are morally prohibited because we now know

that they use the residents of a targeted nation and the business people of one's

own nation as a means to the end of foreign policy goals.

Possible Rebuttal:

Alternatives to Economic Sanctions:

In contrast to economic sanctions, which are intended to penalize a target country financially, non-economic sanctions are aimed at denying legitimacy or prestige. Although the following list is not exhaustive, non-economic sanctions include:

* Canceling ministerial and summit meetings with a target country;

* Denying a target country's government officials visas to enter the sender country;

* Withdrawing a sender country's ambassador or otherwise downgrading diplomatic and military contacts with a target country;

* Blocking a target country from joining international organizations;

* Opposing a target country's bid to host highly visible international events, such as the Olympics;

* Withholding foreign aid; and

* Instructing a sender country's directors to vote against new loans to a target country at the World Bank or other international financial institutions.

Congress considered:

Private persuasion.

Public appeals.

Consultation with allies on multilateral sanctions.

Non-economic sanctions.

Non-Economic Sanctions
A sender country also may apply non-economic sanctions against a target country to persuade its government to change policy. In contrast to economic sanctions, which are intended to penalize a target country financially, non-economic sanctions are aimed at denying legitimacy or prestige. Although the following list is not exhaustive, non-economic sanctions include:

Canceling ministerial and summit meetings with a target country;

Denying a target country's government officials visas to enter the sender country;

Withdrawing a sender country's ambassador or otherwise downgrading diplomatic and military contacts with a target country;

Blocking a target country from joining international organizations;

Opposing a target country's bid to host highly visible international events, such as the Olympics;

Withholding foreign aid; and

Instructing a sender country's directors to vote against new loans to a target country at the World Bank or other international financial institutions.