“We must use every tool of diplomacy and law we have available, while maintaining both the capacity and the resolve to defend freedom. We must have the vision to explore new avenues when familiar ones seem closed. And we must go forward with a will as great as our goal – to build a practical peace that will endure through the remaining years of this century and far into the next. ”
Because I believe so strongly in the words of U. S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when she spoke at the Stimson Center Event, June 10, 1998, that I ask you to affirm today’s resolution, “Resolved: The use of conomic sanctions to achieve U. S. Foreign Policy goals is moral. ” Before I go on, I feel it necessary to define some key phrases in this resolution: Economic sanctions- the deliberate, government inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations. “Customary” does not mean “contractual”; it simply means levels of trade and financial activity that would probably have occurred in the absence of sanctions. To achieve- to fulfill U. S. Foreign Policy goals- to encompass changes expressly sought by the sender state in the political behavior of the target state.
Moral- capable of right and wrong action or of being governed by a sense of right; subject to the law of duty. I ask you to affirm this resolution in order to achieve my all-important value premise of societal welfare. To make my position clear, I will define societal welfare as the United States government’s duty to act in the nation’s best interest. This also refers to what the majority of the citizens want. To achieve societal welfare, I shall utilize the criterion of national security. I will define national security as the government’s obligation to protect its citizens.
It is in this way that the United States government must proceed to achieve its greatest goal of societal welfare by exercising the security of our nation. Now on to the core of the affirmative case: My first contention in this debate is that sanctions aim to modify behavior, not punish. Sanctions do not exist to ostracize or punish, but rather they encourage a change of policy that leads to compliance with standards of international law. One of our goals is to change or destabilize the target’s government, which means to change its policies that involve human rights, terrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation.
Others are to disrupt a relatively minor military adventure and to change the policies of the target in a major way, such as, to surrender a territory. Our goals are NOT to go to war or mobilize armed forces. These tools are clearly intended to change the target’s behavior, but NOT through economic means. As written by Kimberly Ann Elliot of the Washington Institute for International Economics: Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, second edition, and 1998: Sanctions also serve important domestic political purposes in addition to sometimes changing the behavior of foreign states.
The desire to be seen acting forcefully, but ot to precipitate bloodshed, can easily overshadow specific foreign policy goals. Indeed, domestic political goals increasingly appear to be the motivating force behind the imposition of many recent sanctions. Nevertheless, in judging the success of sanctions, we confine our examination to changes in the policies, capabilities, or government of the target countryFor instance, the success rate (of sanctions) involving destabilization succeeded in 52 percent of the cases.
We establish societal welfare by means of economic sanctions because they are aimed at only modifying the behavior of the target country, ot punishing them. My second contention is that affirming this resolution best protects societal welfare. Sub-point A: It is not only, what our nation needs; it is also what our nation wants. It is in the nation’s best interest to put economic sanctions on offending countries, rather than using a strategy of isolation or going into war.
Through isolation, we would be implying to citizens of other countries that we do not want to involve ourselves, even when the citizens are suffering because of their adulterated government War is also not the best solution, because there is a possibility of the extermination of 6 billion eople The negative must weigh the consequences and realize that economic sanctions are a more peaceful strategy than war It is still our intent to do well with sanctions, even if our goals are not achieved.
As one of the greatest philosophers Immanuel Kant once stated: “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will. ” Sub-point B: America does not support the foreign policy of stopping trade on food and medicine. This is because it would deprive American companies and farmers of the chance to sell their goods and harm innocent ivilians abroad who are deprived of needed food and medicine.
President Clinton explains at a Press Conference on Wednesday April 28, 1999 at Capitol Hill: “Food should not be used as a tool of foreign policy, except under the most compelling circumstances. ” It is in the nation’s best interest to use economic sanctions, rather than going into war or using a strategy of isolation. My third and final contention in this debate is that the criterion of national security selects societal welfare as the superior value. When it comes to national security, it is justified to use economic sanctions.
The Strategic Plan expresses the fundamental national interests of the United States in terms of long-range goals to create a more secure, prosperous, and democratic world for the American people. In order for the United States to fulfill its foreign policy goals with lasting effect, it must have the support of the American people. The only way of this is for the U. S. government to protect its civilians. As stated by Harold Brown of the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University: “A national government has no more fundamental responsibility than to safeguard the nation’s security.
Having a secured nation achieves societal welfare because America will then support their government. Conclusion- As stated by Howard Brembeck of the Fourth Freedom Forum, “Once we accept the fact that economic power, not military power, is our strongest weapon, we can settle international disputes without war. ” Economic sanctions on offending countries are the only peaceful solution and the best alternative in order to keep a secured environment for America’s people. The action with the greatest effects is to vote affirmative.
On this basis, I ask you to accept today’s resolution. Negative Case Introduction- “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or out of it that can be called good without qualification except a good will. ” Because I believe so strongly in the words of one of the greatest philosophers Immanuel Kant, that I ask you to negate today’s resolution: “The use of economic sanctions to achieve U. S. Foreign Policy goals is moral. ” I ask you to negate this resolution in order to achieve the all-important value premise of humanitarianism.
Humanitarianism is to achieve the welfare of all human beings, which is to reduce suffering and reform laws about punishment. To achieve humanitarianism, I shall tilize the criterion of the categorical imperative, which I will address later in detail. It is in this way that the United States government must proceed to achieve its greatest goal of humanitarianism, by exercising the categorical imperative. Now on to the core of the negative case: My first contention in this debate is that sanctions are overly harsh, therefore ineffective.
Economic sanctions harm the innocent, the poor, and the oppressed. For instance, the sanctions against Iraq are harming the general population, but not making Saddam Hussein miss a single meal! Sanctions have hit the Iraqis harder than any military ombardment, and at least a bombardment inevitably ends. In 1996, an estimated 4,500 children were dying EVERY month of hunger and disease because of conditions imposed by the sanctions (UNICEF). The World Food Program announced that 180,000 children under five in Iraq were malnourished.
The United States’ goal of the Iraqis overthrowing their government is not realistic, since the citizens are sick and dying and can NOT create a strong fighting force. As stated by UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan: “The hardship imposed on the civilian population is greatly disproportionate to the likely impact of he sanctions on the behavior of the protagonists. ” Because economic sanctions are too harsh, they are ineffectual, therefore not humane. My second contention is that negating this resolution best protects the value of humanitarianism.
Sanctions impose hardship by affecting ordinary people far more than leaders. That is, the suffering must be borne by those who are not directly at fault. The only effective way to end human rights atrocities in the target country is with humanitarian peacekeeping forces. We must end the suffering of innocent civilians in the targeted countries. As stated by Ambassador Nihal Rodrigo of Sri Lanka: “Decisions must take better account of the sanctions’ impact on ordinary people and must seek to avoid the suffering of the innocent. ” The welfare of all people is achieved only through humanitarianism.
My final contention is that the categorical imperative selects humanitarianism as the superior value in this debate. The categorical imperative is a philosophy by Immanuel Kant. Economic sanctions are a means to an end, but Kant explains that there should be just an end, an unconditional good in itself. Kant states: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the erson of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
The acts of atrocity towards other rational beings would not be acts of genuine moral worth since they regard other rational beings as a means of furthering the welfare of the human race rather than as ends in themselves. The US must not allow innocent civilians to suffer through MEANS of economic sanctions in order to achieve the END of their foreign policy goal. For the reasons I have mentioned, the superior value of humanitarianism and the achievement of the criterion of the categorical imperative, I ask you to negate this resolution.
