November/December (2) Evidence
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence
For the Resolution
Resolved: The use of economic sanctions to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals is moral.
November/December 1999 NFL LD Topic
Editor and Researcher: Craig Linton
I make no warranty regarding this document and the contents herein. The user of this document retains full responsibility for insuring the accuracy of information provided herein. Use at your own risk!
Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page
Jahangir Amuzegar, and international economic consultant, was minister of finance in Iran's pre-1979 government. Foreign Affairs, May/June 1997, Volume 76 No. 3.
OBJECTIVES OF SANCTIONS
The American-driven sanctions against Iran were meant to transform the "backlash state" into a law-abiding, cooperative, and constructive member of the world community. Washington expected trade and investment restrictions to cripple the productive base of the economy and curtail Iran's ability to support international terrosim or acquire sophistocated millitary hardware. Economic hardship and fiscal austerity would demoralize the population and turn it against the regime. And domestic popular discontent and external political isolation, Washington hopes, would bring the clerical leadership to its senses.
NOT ANTICIPATED RESULTS
What is certain, however, is that the economic, psychological, and political impact of the American sanctions has not produced the anticipated results or transformed the regime [in Iran*].
*Evidence editor appended.
SANCTIONS MADE IRANIAN ECONOMY MORE STABLE
Although the comparison may seem invidious, the Iranian economy under sanctions is in certain respects healthier and more stable than many developing economies the United States has assisted. Militarily, Iran appears to be stronger now than in 1989, and is certainly less vulnerable to some U.S. allies in the region. The embargo has isolated Washington rather than Tehran.
ECONOMIC SANCTIONS CRIPPLE
There is no boubt that Iran would be in better shape had the United States not resolved to ostracize and cripple it.
SANCTIONS CREATE STRONGER TIES
Despite the sanctions -- or perhaps because of them -- Tehran now has close ties to Russia, China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, which together account for nearly half the world's population.
SANCTIONS ONLY WORK IF MULTILATERAL
Historically, economic sanctions have worked only when they have been universal and comprehensive, consistant and credible -- in short, leakproof.
SANCTIONS DO NOT STOP AMERICAN IMPORTS
Shops in Iran are stocked with American goods of every description -- many smuggled in, but others imported legally through neighboring countries. Some Iranian exports also have found their way into the American market through third parties and legal loopholes.
SANCTIONS HANDICAP ECONOMIC GROWTH
Sanctions matter not because they can, in their present configuration, bring the Islamic regime to its knees, but because they may handicap it in the race to rapid economic growth.
Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page
Jeffery E. Garten, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade from 1993 to 1995, Dean of the Yale School of Management.
COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN FOREIGN POLICY
Throughout most American history, commercial interests have played a central role in foreign policy, and vice-versa.
Business was able to drive a good deal of foreign policy because of unique features of American society. Corporate leaders, lawyers, and investment bankers were able to move in and out of the highest levels of government.
EXPORTS IMPORTANT TO ECONOMIC GROWTH
To begin with, the health of the American economy is more closely linked to foreign markets than ever before. The country can no longer generate enough growth, jobs, profits, and savings from domestic sources. More than one-third of America's economic growth now derives from exports. By the turn of the century, more than 16 million jobs will be supported by overseas sales.
FOREIGN POLICY AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
From a foreign policy standpoint, moreover, America's links to most countries, and its potential influence on them, depend increasingly on commercial relationships.
HUMAN RIGHTS = COMMERCIAL LAWS
America's economic interest in improving the lives of people in emerging markets goes well beyond enhancing their incomes so that they can purchase more products and services -- important as that may be. The issue is the rule of law. If foreign governments do not seek to protect basic human rights, they are more likely to ignore or circumvent other basic laws of great commercial relavance, such as those that protect intellectual property rights, combat corruption, and mandate the disclosure of critical financial information.
Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page
Elliott Abrams, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, The Weekly Standard. "Words or War; Why Sanctions Are Necessary" (27 July 1998).
SANCTIONS NEEDED FOR ENFORCEMENT
The history of the U.S. human-rights policy shows that "mere" words can sometimes be effective tools. This is especially so when the regime under attack is pledged to respect common values, whether because it sees itself as part of the West and seeks American approval, as was the case with Latin American (which was pledged to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the Helsinki Agreement). But words appear to have little impact on the most savage regimes, those we now call "pariah states," such as Libya and Iraq. Nor did words have much impact in the past decades on the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. Confronted with hard cases, the United States may wish to reinforce its words with economic pressure.
SANTIONS ARE MOSTLY SYMBOLIC
To escape the choice between words and war, governments for centuries have used economic pressure. Even when sanctions are mostly symbolic, they are still important, for they show that we take seriously what the regime in question is doing.
SANCTIONS HAVE ECONOMIC EFFECT
More commonly, economic sanctions do have and economic effect on the targeted regime. And the proof is the feirce struggle by so many target governments to have the sanctions removed. They pay fortunes to lobbyists in Washington, and they denounce and revile the sanctions and the members of Congress who promote them -- all the while insisting that the sanctions do not affect them in the least or that sanctions only starve children and do not hur the regime. But with rare exceptions, American economic sanctions have a moral and an economic impact -- and the target regimes deeply resent and are hurt by both.
CRITERIA FOR ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
The United States imposes economic sanctions when a large body of its citizens, as represented in Congress or by the president, conclude that some other nation's behavior is so egregious as to preclude normal economic relations.
UNILATERAL SANCTIONS MAY BE ONLY WAY
To argue against all unilateral sanctions, then, is to ague for subordinating America's moral judgements to an internations lowest-common-denominator. It is to argue that we must wait for an international consensus that is, for all the reasons Morgenthau noted, extremely rare.
UNILATERAL SANCTIONS UPHOLD U.S. UNIQUE POSITION
There is a second and deeper flaw in the argument against unilateral sanctions. It overlooks the unique position in the world now held by the United States, and undermines the necessity of American leadership to the peace and prosperity we currently enjoy.
Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page
This site has been viewed
![[Aaddzz Counter]](http://counter.aaddzz.com/counter.cgi?id=68821)
times.
 E-Mail Webmaster
|
 |
