Nestor Carbonell. Published Tuesday, May 2, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Who, if not Castro, turned a family tragedy into a huge political tug-of-war?
Nestor Carbonell is a business executive in Purchase, N.Y., and author of And the Russians Stayed.
The brutal taking of Elian Gonzalez has been portrayed by the Clinton administration and others as appropriate to reunite a father with his son.
Sadly, that is just a facade. Behind the father's custodial claim lies a veiled refugee threat to the United States posed by a callous manipulator: Fidel Castro. Despite this, or most likely, because of it, the attorney general summarily denied political asylum to Elian, revoked the temporary
custody granted to his great-uncle, Lazaro and ordered the boys forceful removal.
Leaving aside the shocking and unnecessary abuse and the fact that mediators were, at that very moment, negotiating in good faith with the attorney general, there are a number of unanswered questions that point to a deal with Castro:
Why did the Justice Department change the Immigration Naturalization Service's December position that Elian's interests would be best served in a family court? Why did Janet Reno rely on a cursory INS investigation conducted in Cuba and on a brief meeting with Elian's father, Juan Miguel, at her
office to conclude that he was a free agent and not coerced by Castro? Why did she disregard or ignore sworn testimony that Juan Miguel had called relatives in Miami to apprise them that Elian was on his way to Florida and to ask them to take good care of him? (There seems to be a Sprint phone bill
confirming the collect call.)
Moreover, how could the Justice Department have determined that Elian's health and well-being were at risk in Miami based on the report of a pediatrician who did not even interview the child? Finally, why didn't the president and the attorney general wait for the impending decision of the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals on Elian's asylum request?
These questions reflect a skewed pattern of conduct by the Clinton administration -- one that clearly tilted in favor of Juan Miguel; not, alas, as a father with full custodial rights, but as the hapless puppet of Cuba's Maximum Puppeteer.
Who, if not Castro, turned a family tragedy, which his oppressive regime created, into a huge political tug-of-war? Who, if not Castro, stonewalled Juan Miguel's trip to the United States for four months? Then laid down the conditions for him to come? Who, if not Castro, already has decided the
``de-programming'' that Elian needs and the Miramar residence in Havana where it will be conducted?
IT'S ALL BRAINWASHING
This shouldn't surprise those who remember the brainwashing techniques of totalitarian governments and how they mold the minds of kids, particularly those with potential for leadership. In Cuba, this practice has been codified. The Cuban Code for Children and Youths stipulates that ``the
Communist formation of the new generations is an important aspiration of the State,'' and parental rights exist ``only so long as they don't contravene the political objectives of the State.'' This verbiage, which in a post-Cold War era sounds anachronistic, still has real ominous meaning in Cuba.
It calls for young Communist Pioneers to chant ``we shall be like Che'' and disengage from traditional family ties. At age 11, kids are removed from their homes for extended periods and sent to work without pay at government camps in the field, where promiscuity corrodes moral values and
venereal diseases run rampant. Opportunities for higher education depend on each student's ``cumulative dossier'' showing level of compliance with the dictates of the Castro regime.
DIED FOR HER SON
That's precisely what Elian's mother was trying to avoid. She knew of tyranny's depravities and died so that her son could be free. How sad if her last will were crushed by sending him back to the very captive island whence they escaped.
Why is the U.S. government intent on doing this? Not because they are naive, not because they like Castro, but because they fear him.
It's hard to imagine how the failed dictator of a small, impoverished island could force the attorney general of the most powerful nation on Earth to buckle under his December ultimatum: ``Return Elian or else . . . ''
Well, he seems to have done it with the veiled threat of using again a most lethal weapon in an election year: reopening the floodgates of refugees from Cuba. If true, as it seems, blackmail prevailed over the rule of law.
Let us hope that the U.S. courts will prevent the executive branch from sacrificing young Elian on the shameful altar of appeasement.
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |