Clay Stewart

Debate Team

January/ February LD Debate Case (Negative Russia Disad)

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

“The most catastrophic mistake the outside world has made since 1991 is to
assume that Russia is steadily becoming a ‘normal country’”(Lucas 6). “Russia is
seeking its own way, based on a controlled political system, a strong presidency, and a
tough stance towards the outside world. The result is a menace both to Russia… and the
West, which is struggling to cope with the Kremlin (Lucas 9)- That was journalist Edward
Lucas in 2009. I negate because I agree with Lucas: We are fighting the New Cold War,
and we are losing abysmally.
I offer the following definitions for clarification of the resolution. Economic
sanctions- restrictions on finance or trade with a country in order to influence its political
situation or to make its government change its policy. Ought- advisability. Use- to
employ for some purpose. Foreign policy objectives- General goals that guide the
activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states.

Observation One: The Evaluative Standard Is Impact Calculus

The resolution is asking us to evaluate a policy, and whether or not it ought to be

used. As a result, the best way to evaluate the round is impact calculus, because it allows
us to take into account every facet of a policy. Foreign policy is incredibly complex and
three dimensional, and how we evaluate the round must reflect this.

Contention One: Russia is a Threat to Its Own Citizens

Russia’s government is an increasingly violent dictatorship. According to Lucas,

“the idea that Russia is different and that Western ideas of political freedom do not apply
is… entrenched” (Lucas XV). In the recent Presidential elections, which Dmitri
Medvedev won by a landside, there were reports of voter coercion at every level. Free
speech is a farce. According to Lucas, “the media remains muzzled, while those who try
to present a different view struggle to survive.” Quoting those whom the government
views as extremist risks prosecution. Corruption is wide-spread but anti-corruption
efforts are a joke. Political opposition, as a result of new extremist laws, is dangerous. In
February 2008, Roman Nikolaychik, an opposition activist, spent a month in a mental
hospital against his will. In July 2008, Ilya Shunin, a National Bolshevik supporter, was
arrested on charges of running his party’s allegedly extremist website. Most political
prisoners remain in jail. Russia will not hesitate to violently suppress dissenters. In
November 2006, Aleksandr Litvenko, a former FSB officer who fled to London, was
poisoned by a rare radioactive isotope called polonium-210. When British authorities
found the FSB responsible, Russia refused to extradite the alleged killer. According to
Lucas, “the affair amounted to nuclear terrorism in the heart of London” (Lucas 2).
Contention Two: Russia is a Global Menace

Russia is slowly gaining control of the global oil market, and, is using that power
to further its agenda. In July 2008, oil supplies to the Czech Republic were temporarily
cut off when the country agreed to base American missile-defense radar within its
borders. This type of economic politics is expanding Russia’s power exponentially.
Because of Russia’s energy monopoly, Lucas explains, “Europe faces a bleak choice
between accepting dependence on Russia, or making a… switch away from fossil fuels”
(Lucas xix). Russia is slowly gaining control of the global oil market, and, along with it,
making other countries economically dependent. According to Lucas, “ Austria…,
Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands,
Portugal, Turkey, and Slovakia, to name but a few… have succumbed to the temptation
to be “special friends” of the Kremlin” (Lucas 15).

Observation Two: Russia Is Economically Vulnerable

Lack of diversification in the Russian economy has cost Russia dearly in the
current economic situation. Bloomberg News explains, “The… global financial crisis…
undermined demand for Russia’s oil, natural gas and metals”. These accounted for
68.8% of its exports in the first half of 2009. The Russian economy contracted at 10.9%
of GDP in the second quarter. In the words of Russia’s President, Dmitry Medvedev,
Russia “crumbled” when the demand for its commodities plummeted.
Russia, given its current economic situation, cannot afford to lose any trading
partner. U.S. FDI, or Federal Direct Investment in, combined with U.S. imports from,
Russia amount to approximately $38 billion annually, most of which is concentrated in
Russia’s commodities market. If the U.S. were to sanction Russia, cutting all economic
ties, then Russia’s already crumbling commodities industry, the base of the Russian
economy, would be devastated. Russia’s equivalent of the Stock Market, the Micex
Index, which is mostly made up of energy companies, would be short billions of dollars,
harming every part of Russia’s economy. Faced with economic collapse, Russia would
have no choice but to concede to any and all demands made by the U.S. America could
virtually dictate Russian policy by threatening to sanction, ending this New Cold War
here and now, instilling a new era of freedom and democracy in Russia, avoiding
disaster. Once this current recession ends, however, Russia’s economy will stabilize, and
our ability to change Russian policy with economic leverage will end. The affirmative’s
failure to sanction now grants Russia hegemony.

Impact 1: Freedom

Russia’s citizens live under an oppressive authoritarian regime. Lucas explains,

“[In Russia,] [t]he law is a tool for the powerful against the weak [and] [t]he separation
of powers, ethics codes, human rights treaties, and multilateral obligations are nothing
more than convenient fiction” (Lucas 13). 141.8 million Russians live in oppression
because of their government, and the affirmative allows Russia to grow more powerful.

Impact 2: Global Politics

 The injustice I just described is not unique to Russia. According to a report by the
European Council on Foreign Relations, “[Russia] is setting itself up as an
ideological alternative to the EU, with a different approach to sovereignty, power,
and world order” (Lucas xx). The Russian Federation and its Chinese allies actively
oppose ideas like rule of law and political freedom. Lucas explains, “A Russian veto
at the UN…, exercised jointly with China, opposing sanctions against the regime
of… Mugabe in Zimbabwe showed the continuing hostility of the Kremlin to…
concerns about political freedom and the rule of law” (Lucas xix). The affirmative
allows Russia to pursue its agenda with even more power, increasing Russian
support of socialist Venezuela and oppressive Iran, while empowering Russia’s
opposition to the spread of democracy and freedom. A new era of global tyranny
will result, where international emphasis on things like freedom and democracy is
either obliterated or hamstrung.

Impact 3: International Organizations

Russia, because of its flawed belief in authoritarianism, opposes international

organizations. According to the European Council on Foreign Relations, “Moscow
believes that laws are mere expressions of power, and that when the balance of power
changes, laws should be changed to reflect it” (Lucas xx). Lucas explains the result,
“The Kremlin’s representatives throw habitual tantrums in international organizations…
They obstruct programs in countries they don’t like, and demand hefty pay-offs in return
for their consent” (Lucas 11). Russia and China’s recent decision to oppose sanctioning
Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a prime example of this, prioritizing a minute reduction in
weapons exports over sanctioning an oppressive regime. In NATO, Lucas explains,
“[Russia] created turmoil at the NATO summit in Bucharest” (Lucas xxiv). In Europe,
Lucas explains, “[Russia] has crippled the European Union” (Lucas xxiv). These
organizations are building a better world, and the affirmative allows Russia to become
exponentially more powerful with catastrophic implications. Wars will occur, as the
strong stable relationships which organizations like the U.N. builds deteriorate, and the
current venue in which countries solve their problems peacefully becomes defunct.
Genocide will kill millions, as the international court that holds offenders accountable is
hamstrung. Negation is forced.