Lincoln - Douglas Debate

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