Military force should be used in a conflict if peace can not be achieved rapidly.

Case Study: Cuba Before I respond to my opponent's case, I would like to discuss a historical example of intervention by a third party. For 400 years, beginning in 1511, Cuba belonged to Spain. Serious demands for Cuban independence began to emerge in 1866 and escalated into violent revolt which lasted on and off, culminating in the Cuban War of Independence in 1895. Three years into the war, the USS Maine was sent to Havana, ostensibly to protect the lives of Americans living in the city during the war. On Feb. 15, 1898, an explosion of controversial origin sank the USS Maine. This incident proved to be a catalyst for action amidst the already existing demands for U.S. intervention. President McKinley made the following request of Congress: "[A]uthorize and empower the President to take measures to secure a ... termination of hostilities between ... Spain and the people of Cuba, and to ... [establish] a stable government ... and to use the military and naval forces of the United States as may be necessary for these purposes." Congress approved with the binding stipulation that Cuba could could not be annexed by the U.S. but must be left to the Cuban people. With the aid of the U.S., Spain was forced to leave Cuba. The U.S. began to withdraw in August of 1895. This withdrawal was conditional, two conditions being the establishment of Guantanamo Bay naval base and the right of future U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs. As an independent state, Cuba proved to be less than stable. The 1906 elections resulted in an armed revolt that was resolved by US installation of a Governor. Elections in 1908 restored self-governance. An attempt to form a separate black republic was violently quashed in 1912, with the help of US forces. The Cuban constitution was suspended in 1930, resulting in violent attacks by various insurgent groups. Amidst a series of violent coups and U.S. involvement, Fulgencio Batista emerged as the ruler of Cuba. And so on. * * * * * For what purpose do I detail the origins of the state of Cuba? Cuba represents an instance in which third party intervention in a violent political dispute was "successful;" the dispute was resolved and the mechanisms were put in place to allow for self governance. In the short term, violent third party intervention was able to put an end to the violence between Spain and Cuban rebels. However, the long run view of Cuban Independence shows that this success was an illusion. Over a period of 35 years Cuba saw political disputes repeatedly escalate to violence and the democratic governance of Cuba was repeatedly disrupted or dismantled. The failure of US intervention to result in the peaceful governance of Cuba bears out the central claim of my first round speech: violence is untenable as a solution to any dispute. The cycle of violence I described is clearly visible in the Cuban example. First, as US intervention "succeeded," it was institutionalized in the Cuban constitution, allowing for continued US intervention in Cuban affairs. US intervention was repeatedly administered violently, as in the case of the 1912 revolt. Second, a Cuban political atmosphere was created in which the ultimate solution to political conflict was violent action. The Cuban revolution utilized violence to create an independent Cuba; violence was legitimized as an effective means of political action and more importantly, as an acceptable course of action if "necessary." Finally, the principle of escalation is borne out. What begins as a conflict between Cuban nationals escalated to a conflict between the U.S. and Spain (the Spanish American War). This War had far reaching implications for the Philipines, Puerto Rico, and the fate of the Spanish Empire. What Cuba shows us is that violence is not a localized problem but a structural one. Acts of violence only serve to strengthen the political systems that perpetuate violence; only a categorical condemnation of violence through NV/CD can free humanity from the domination of war. R2 Rebuttal 1. My opponent claims NV/CD would be ineffective in a large number of cases but provides no warrant for this claim; his claim is an unsupported assertion. I have offered multiple examples of the success of NV/CD under very different conditions. In this round the weight of the evidence clearly stands in favor of the feasibility of NV/CD. 2. My opponent claims that I assume occupation in my advocacy of NV/CD. This is not true. The following are acts of NV resistance that can be carried out in absence of occupied territory: trade embargoes, hunger strikes, marches, rallies. Each of these methods have been used with success historically. 3. My opponent claims NV/CD requires that a significant number of the local population are against an occupying force. First, whenever a political faction is behaving violently, there is always a significant number of the local population opposed to the actions of the political faction. I challenge you to find a historical example where this is not the case. Second, opposition to violent behavior can come from the global community as well as the local community. This is a crucial aspect of NV/CD; NV/CD exposes the evil of violent political factions and initiates a moral awakening in those who may not be the direct victims. This is what happened in the US Civil Rights movement as the abuse nonviolent protesters suffered drew growing sympathy from the non-minority population. The efficacy of NV/CD stems not only from its ability to materially disrupt the oppressor's ability to impose control on a population but also from its ability to force awareness and elicit moral outrage from observers. 4. My opponent claims NV/CD should be used first "before NLMF." This mentality illustrates exactly what is meant when I say that the use of violence cements the view that violence is the ultimate political solution. NV/CD is seen as an intermediary solution, but ultimately when the cards are down, violence is what we should turn to as a final resort. Only a complete and total rejection of violent action can dismantle the cycle of violence. 5. My opponent says CD/NV is ineffective where free speech is not allowed. The case of the People Power Revolution in the Philippines I cited in R1 disprove this. NV resistance was able to effectively bring about political change despite the presence of martial law. Despite the ruling power imprisoning political opposition, shutting down universities, and blocking radio broadcasts, NV was able to replace an authoritarian government with a democracy. Overview My opponent's advocacy of NLMF equates to an advocacy for violence as the ultimate political solution. This call to violence is unable to provide a long term path to peace. Instead, calls to violence only perpetuate a cycle of violence which, in a nuclear world, is a cycle that threatens the very survival of our species. Any dialogue concerning the conflict resolution must have as its goal the long term achievement of lasting peace. Only a categorical condemnation of violence through advocacy of NV/CD can offer such a long term solution.