Sanction THIS

I had the unfortunate duty to switch debate events at the last minute after my already-flighty partner planned a trip to New York during state-quals. Switching from PF to LD has been rough, but I'm getting it. And I suppose there is a silver lining; I have a new subject to rant about!

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

At least now I'll shut up about Afghanistan, eh?

So from what I've read- and I've read about 200 pages on the subject- it seems that economic sanctions, contrary to my original belief, suck. A lot. Like Nicholas Kristof said in 2003, "The United States imposed 85 new unilateral economic sanctions on foreign nations from 1996 to 2001. But sanctions, which cost U.S. companies up to $19 billion in 1995 alone, aren’t a policy; they’re a feel-good substitute for one."

The thing is, though, it's not "feel-good". Although it's true that there are many important differences between actual military intervention and economic sanctions, I'd go as far as to say that sanctions can, in most cases, be worse.

Sanctions target innocents. This is a big idea, and a big problem. According to Dave McGinnis, "Sanctions target innocents because they are directed against the economy of the nation, and the economy involves the interests of everyone, not just the leaders or others responsible for bad state behaviors. Even “targeted” sanctions implicate the economy of the nation because autocratic leaders generally have largely managed economies, so if you – for example – freeze the assets of a dictator, they are likely to respond by extracting more assets from the economy and shifting the burden of the sanction down the economic ladder to the most vulnerable members of society."

That kind of sucks, especially since dictators obviously don't care about the welfare of their citizens, and the citizens have no political pull in order to change their situation. Hurting these people doesn't help anything, especially not global human-rights policy.