Razor will be affirming the topic.
Resolved: Economic sanctions are a morally justified way of punishing nations that refuse basic human rights to their citizens.
Since the question of this debate isn't "Are Economic sanctions viable?" but rather, "Are they moral?" I can safely affirm this topic.
Economic sanctions, when used to punish nations such as North Korea that blatantly violate the human rights of their citizens,
is a morally justified way to punish countries.
The question first posed by Dear Reader may be, "Wait Razor, what ARE economic sanctions?" Well, Dear Reader, you should probably pay attention to the news more often. But since you're reading this, and I might as well make sure I know what I'm talking about, I'll go ahead and quote the wiki.
wiki.com said:
Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons. Economic sanctions include, but are not limited to, tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas. The most famous example of an economic sanction is the fifty-year-old United States embargo against Cuba.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions
As defined by Wikipedia, economic sanctions are non-violent, domestic ways to try and show a nation that you don't like what they're doing. For instance, let's take Cuba vs. the United States.
The United States is chilling out in it's Northern Hemisphere, watching Britain and Germany do what they do. All of the sudden, Cuba comes along. Just floating there, looking all menacing like. Not only that, but they have a president Fidel Castro that ALWAYS wears camo. Also, Russia kinda loves him, because he's a Communist and he sent Nikita Krushchev love letters. In exchange for the love letters, millions in funding, a few cool new missiles, and a sly wink, Cuba aligned herself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Not only that , but Cuba took some land from American businesses that were operating in Cuba, and basically made a big mess of accepted Human Rights. America, tired of Cuba being a bitch, placed a trade embargo on 1960. Then, on February 1962, it was strengthened to a near full embargo just to see the look on Castro's face.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_embargo
The official reason for this embargo? I mean, Kennedy couldn't really say "I don't like you." That's just not good, American form. The official reason, as outlined in the wiki article:
The embargo was codified into law in 1992 with the stated purpose of maintaining sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights.
That's a nice way of saying "Americans don't like Communists, and we would like you to stop doing stupid shit to your citizens, please."
The embargo meant that we couldn't sell cars, or most anything, to Cuba. That's why you still see 1950s Ford cars on the roads in Cuba. That's all they could grab before the 1960s embargo.
Despite this embargo, America does not stop Humanitarian aid from reaching Cuba. You want to donate rice to them? Sure, America won't step in your way. Just don't try to stuff a new Rolls Royce in the rice and sell it to Castro.
It's the same with all other embargoes. North Korea, Iran, you name it. We have North Korea on near total embargo lock down. However, we still send rice to their people. We send rice, straight from the rice fields of Arkansas, to the North Korean people. Why? Because if we didn't, their people would starve. While we have placed an embargo on Korea to prove to them we mean business, we still allow their people to eat.
And that, Dear Reader, is why embargoes are morally justified to use on a nation guilty of human rights violations. We show their nation that we mean business, but we don't allow their nation to starve. If we didn't do this, if we didn't place embargoes on nations, then we'd be forced to go to war over every petty difference. This way, we save millions of lives and still get our point across.
