Word Count: 1531
Affirmative Case Introduction- "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
economic 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
not 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 country…For 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,
not 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
people… 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
civilians 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
utilize 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
bombardment, 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
the 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
person 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.
Now I will move on to the affirmative’s case…
Keywords:
word count affirmative case introduction quot must every tool diplomacy have available
while maintaining both capacity resolve defend freedom must have vision explore
avenues when familiar ones seem closed must forward with will great goal build practical
peace that will endure through remaining years this century into next because believe
strongly words secretary state madeleine albright when spoke stimson center event june
that affirm today resolution resolved economic sanctions achieve foreign policy goals
moral before feel necessary define some phrases this resolution economic sanctions
deliberate government inspired withdrawal threat withdrawal customary trade financial
relations quot customary quot does mean contractual simply means levels trade financial
activity that would probably have occurred absence sanctions achieve fulfill foreign
policy goals encompass changes expressly sought sender state political behavior target
state moral capable right wrong action being governed sense right subject duty affirm this
resolution order achieve important value premise societal welfare make position clear
will define societal welfare united states government duty nation best interest also refers
what majority citizens want societal welfare shall utilize criterion national security define
national security government obligation protect citizens united states proceed greatest
goal exercising security nation core affirmative case first contention debate modify
behavior punish exist ostracize punish rather they encourage change policy leads
compliance with standards international goals change destabilize target which means
change policies involve human rights terrorism nuclear nonproliferation others disrupt
relatively minor military adventure policies target major such surrender territory mobilize
armed forces these tools clearly intended behavior through economic means written
kimberly elliot washington institute international economics reconsidered second edition
also serve important domestic political purposes addition sometimes changing foreign
states desire seen acting forcefully precipitate bloodshed easily overshadow specific
indeed domestic political increasingly appear motivating force behind imposition many
recent nevertheless judging success confine examination changes policies capabilities
country instance success rate involving destabilization succeeded percent cases establish
because they aimed only modifying country punishing them second contention affirming
best protects point only what nation needs also what wants best interest offending
countries rather than using strategy isolation going into through isolation would implying
citizens other countries want involve ourselves even when suffering because their
adulterated solution there possibility extermination billion people negative weigh
consequences realize more peaceful strategy than still intent well with even achieved
greatest philosophers immanuel kant once stated nothing possibly conceived world even
which called good without qualification except good point america does support stopping
trade food medicine would deprive american companies farmers chance sell their goods
harm innocent civilians abroad deprived needed food medicine president clinton explains
press conference wednesday april capitol hill food should used tool except under most
compelling circumstances interest rather than going into using strategy isolation third
final contention debate criterion national selects superior value comes justified strategic
plan expresses fundamental interests united terms long range create more secure
prosperous democratic world american people order fulfill lasting effect support american
people only protect civilians stated harold brown school advanced international studies
johns hopkins university more fundamental responsibility safeguard having secured
achieves america then support their conclusion stated howard brembeck fourth freedom
forum once accept fact power military power strongest weapon settle disputes without
offending countries peaceful solution alternative order keep secured environment america
action greatest effects vote affirmative basis accept today negative case introduction
nothing possibly conceived world called good without qualification except believe
strongly words philosophers immanuel kant negate today moral negate important value
premise humanitarianism humanitarianism human beings which reduce suffering reform
laws about punishment humanitarianism shall utilize criterion categorical imperative
address later detail proceed goal exercising categorical imperative core negative first
debate overly harsh therefore ineffective harm innocent poor oppressed instance against
iraq harming general population making saddam hussein miss single meal iraqis harder
military bombardment least bombardment inevitably ends estimated children were dying
every month hunger disease conditions imposed unicef program announced children
under five iraq were malnourished iraqis overthrowing realistic since sick dying create
strong fighting force secretary general kofi annan hardship imposed civilian population
greatly disproportionate likely impact protagonists harsh they ineffectual therefore
humane second negating protects impose hardship affecting ordinary leaders suffering
borne those directly fault effective human rights atrocities country humanitarian
peacekeeping forces innocent civilians targeted ambassador nihal rodrigo lanka decisions
take better account impact ordinary seek avoid achieved final categorical imperative
selects superior philosophy immanuel kant explains there should just unconditional itself
such always treat humanity whether your person person other never simply always same
time acts atrocity towards other rational beings acts genuine worth since regard rational
beings furthering race ends themselves allow suffer reasons mentioned superior
achievement negate move
Keywords General:
Essay, essays, termpaper, term paper, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study,
college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research, book research, study help,
download essay, download term papers