Economic sanctions should not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Alright you guys, im preparing cases for a new debate topic for Lincoln Douglas debate and im trying to learn everything about this topic I can so any points you can bring up are very helpful....Alright take your sides! :-D
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Sinister means of gaining objective
By weakening a country economically in an attempt to coerce it to meet one's objectives, can be termed as a reverse bribe. Adding pressure through monetary incentive where there shouldn't be any is wrong, blatantly wrong.
People/Countries should be allowed to make decisions with economic pressure or safety threats. Nations are sovereign and autonomous, to strip them of there independence by cutting their resources is sinister, frankly.
It is an effective means of getting other countries to meet your Country's objectives.
In a largely capitalist world, everything, every decision is money-motivated.
not effective locals targeted , not decision making leaders(who aren't very democratic as it is)
The effectiveness of this method of achieving foreign policy objectives is in question , especially in places where democracy is absent(elections are rigged) and leaders do whatever they want irrespective of financial/economic pressure on their populace.
Iran is not the only country in the world and this modus operandi is 'generally' effective.
economic sanctions could lead to loss of allies
When we are trading with a country that we have a strong connection with (like britain and france) everthing would be fine but lets say that that country does something that our nation does not like when we pose a sanction on this country we are cut of from them they could get angry and we would lose our allies and thhe goods we depend on from that country!!
With some of our stronger allies, such as with Britain as you mentioned, it is doubtful that something so petty as economic sanctions could break, or even weaken, our alliance with them. As a matter of fact, to do so, Britain would have to leave NATO, an unlikely event no matter your stance. And if it can, one must question whether or not they were true allies to begin with.
Furthermore, say the country in question (staying with Britain) did break ties with us? Is Britain going to break economic connections with the most powerful nation on earth?
And still, if they did do so, we are in a "Flat world" if I may reference Thomas Friedman. Trade partners can easily be replaced, goods can be found from another source.
Sanctions are a peaceful alternative to war
Using economic sanctions as a method of coercing other countries to cooperate can either postpone or eliminate the need to go to war. Thus it promotes the usage of more peaceful methods to "battle" with countries, as opposed to utilizing military means.
If economic sanctions could actualy achieve that end, I would be in agreement with you. Being that they have scarcely if ever been shown to work, and whether or not they are peaceful is also up to debate, I must disagree.
Often, with economic sanctions, we are merely delaying something inevitable, or using a bad approach, and we therefor go to war in the end. While it is not a comfortable premise to accept, a situation can escalte to the point where war is neccesary.
However, I will agree that there are peaceful alternatives to war often times, and they ought to be pursued. Yet, economic sanctions are not one of them. In fact, they are often counter productive to achieving a foreign policy goal through peaceful means. A far more effective goal to change a country for the better is to open ourselves economically and culturally to them. When there is a free flow of our ideas and culture and values, we often achieve far more lasting, meaningful changes. In an ethical manner at that.
The examples of economic sanctions not working often come from by gone eras
With this resolution, we are talking in the context of the present. Yet, the affirmative case so often brings up cases from a bygone era of shrewd and even imperialistic foreign policy.
Economic sanctions have changed since the Cold War. We understand better how to implement them in the world, and how we do so has changed drastically. To bring up examples from the past, such as those imposed upon Chile between 1970 and 1973, is often irrelevant.
What do you think?