JSA

As some of you may know, I am apart of the Junior State of America (JSA) national youth organization. In fact, JSA is the largest student-run organization in the country! JSA events are composed of debates, though talks, and other likewise political agendas. JSA aims to spread political awareness to the youth, because everyone must be aware and active in a flourishing democracy. JSA moto: DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT.


Anyway, during JSA's Fall Convention, in Phoenix, AZ. I was the Pro speaker for the followeing resolution-
Resolved: The embargoes are an ineffective method to effective governmental change.

The resolution failed; we lost by two votes! Anyway, here is the speech I gave in the opening 6min. time slot.

Resolved: That embargoes are ineffective methods of effecting governmental change.
Pragmatic definitions for an embargo read in like manner to this: An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country in older to isolate it. Thus, the isolated country is expected to mold its political, social or economic policies in order to please the country imposing the embargo. In other words, the embargo-imposing country is using the threat of economic immobility in an attempt to affect change in another nation. Embargoes are ineffective methods for affecting governmental change for two distinct reasons. First, is the notion of an ever-connecting world, a globalized international community which will greatly be affected by any, and all, embargoes implemented; the embargo-imposing country must be willing to face off against all other countries wishing to have commerce with the embargoed nation. Secondly, an embargo forces the isolated country to comply with any rules, or face economic detriment. Essentially, an embargo is nothing less than one country oppressing another country and in such settings we must question the candor of a nation’s obedience when under coercion. Furthermore, from the Embargo of 1807 on Europe, to America’s present embargo on Cuba, a large majority of past and present embargoes failed to achieve their initial goals.
The interconnectedness of the world is undeniable, as time progresses globalization progresses with it. America has a myriad of ties with a chief majority of the nations on Earth, as do other countries. If the United States were to prohibit commerce and trade with a country like France or China, though that country will be initially hurt, there is great potential for that country to turn to other foreign economies for trade and economic growth. In an article published by The New York Times titled, “The World; Trade Embargoes: Do They Work?” Keith Bradsher, the author, notes, that today’s globalized economy, an embargo is illogical, he goes on to say that the prohibition of commerce and trade by one country is like “one bank not lending you money, in a town with 108 banks”. What theoretically makes an embargo successful is the economic harm done to the embargoed nation, and that nation will thus be forced to modify its policies. However, this can only work if the United States was the only nation importing and exporting goods and services to that country, which in today’s world is not an actuality. A large majority of developed and undeveloped nations contribute to the world economy by either exporting, importing or both; in 2003 alone America exported $767Billion out into the world and imported $1.67Trillion- this fact tells us two things, 1) no wonder the US is in an economic recession and 2) it demonstrates the extent of a country’s, in this case America’s, involvement in an world economy. And although in other times, countries have agreed to follow embargoes implemented by America, in tough economic times like today’s, a country simply cannot afford to refuse the import and export of another country, which contributes to the ineffectiveness of an embargo- since the embargoed nation will continue to take part in the world economy, minus the embargo-imposing nation.
Aside from the economics of an embargo, we must question the integrity of a country’s obedience when embargoed. If in fact a nation is greatly harmed by an embargo, it makes sense to that nation to simply “pretend” to follow the provisions of the aggressor in order to gain back economic strength. A lot of times, America, will chose to place an embargo on a nation if it is cruel or “undemocratic”. For example, the embargo placed on Beijing, China because of the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989. Though there are good intentions in such embargoes, America is only really forcing a country to appear “democratic” or humane, but truly it takes much more than economic peril to socially change a nation. Moreover, a majority of the nations which America chooses to place embargoes on, are governments lead by corrupt and tyrannous oligarchies, like China, Iran and the Middle East, and Cuba. So when that country’s economy is weakened, the only people that suffer are the people whom have suffered under tyranny all along not the leaders, which does not change a thing. Past and present dictators and tyrants like Cuba’s Castro, and Iran’s Hussein were, and are able, to protect themselves and their regimes from the consequences of an embargo, while the lower class suffers; yet another reason which contributes to the infectiveness of embargoes.
In fact, embargoes have never really worked on any level in America. When British ship Leopard fired on American ship Chesapeake in the summer of 1807, inflicting 21 casualties, at-the-time President Thomas Jefferson declared complete and total embargo from Europe and the rest of the world- no ships left and no ships came in, this is known as the Embargo Act of 1807. Though, the goal of the embargo was for Britain and other nations to respect America as a country, the Embargo Act eventually harmed the US itself more than it did the world, due to the fact that trade plummeted by 80% and prices fell 23% all around the country. Consequently, states like Maine and New York and others along the Canadian border took part in smuggling operations in a desperate struggle to end the economic depression. By August of 1808, while the nation was severely affected by the economic hardships, it became vehemently clear to officials that the embargo was a failure; needless to say the Embargo Act of 1807 was later lifted. Another example of a failed embargo would be that of the embargo on Cuba by the United States. The initial goal of the embargo, initiated in 1962, was to pressure communist leaders Fidel and Raul Castro to move towards a democratic government. 47 years later, Cuba continues to be a communist-lead country by Fidel Castro, which is a prime example of a failed embargo. So much so, that earlier this year, Sen. Richard Lugar- a Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee- released a draft report saying it is time to reconsider longtime U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba. His report says, “After 47 years…the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of ‘bringing democracy to the Cuban people… we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests”.
Though an embargo might have at one point appeared effective, in today’s fully globalized world, an embargo does not make sense and perhaps may only harm the embargo-imposing country. As our world further develops, it is time for leaders to draft new EFFECTIVE means to affect governmental change- ones which prove successful from the start as oppose to the negative, inclement beginnings and present state of unsuccessful embargoes.


Ehh, I know I could have done better, but it was pretty last minute, and I though it was good.

What are you thoughts about embargoes? Do they work?