Lincoln – Douglas Debate Essay, Research Paper
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 econom
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?
335