A peaceful handover of six-year-old Elian Gonzalez to his Cuban father was an unlikely prospect. Elian had been with his relatives in Miami since his mother drowned while they were fleeing Cuba for the US five months ago. Elian’s father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, who was separated from Elian’s mother, had stayed in Cuba. He is loyal to the Castro regime. Elian became a pawn in a political war between Mr Gonzalez and Cuban exiles in the US, including many relatives of Elian on his mother’s side. Mr Gonzalez came to the US to pick up his son, but the maternal relatives had virtually kept Elian boy kidnapped. In any event Elian was under virtual siege by the media. Large television trucks and batteries for photographers surrounded the house where he was staying and followed him wherever he went.
Ultimately, the US Government had little choice but to use force to uphold the rule of law. That is the final element in the rule of law: the parties do not abide by the result the Government uses whatever force necessary to achieve the result. Hence last week’s armed police invasion of the relatives’ house to take the boy into custody so he could be returned to his father. Blame for any trauma suffered by the boy must lie with the relatives who have behaved with recalcitrance and near hysteria since Elian arrived in the US. The relatives have behaved with near religious zeal in saying that Elian should remain in the free US rather than go back to communist Cuba. In taking that line they have ignored the much more important consideration that a child should be with parents, or parent if only one is alive, wherever possible. There has been nothing to suggest that Mr Gonzalez is other than a loving capable father. That his politics are pro-Castro is irrelevant when considering his fitness as a father.
If it had been the father who drowned and the pro-Castro mother seeking the return of her child, the Cuban exiles would not have been able to sustain their campaign for five days, let alone five months. The tide of opinion would have been overwhelming. As it was a majority of Americans feel Elian rightfully belongs with his father and that it was right for the US Government to enforce that.
Several good things might arise from the case. First, there will be a greater recognition of fatherhood. Secondly, that people can have great political differences but that should not be a bar to the operation of the rule of law. US Attorney-General Janet Reno behaved commendably when she put her political detestation of Castro’s communism aside when deciding she would enforce the rule of law. Third, it will be salutary for the people of Cuba to see the US system working, leaving them wondering whether Mr Castro would have put family and rule of law before politics. Fourth, it may break the stranglehold that the Cuban exile have on US foreign policy.
The Cuban exiles have been a powerful force in US foreign policy on Cuba for forty years. Nearly all are in Florida, just across the strait from Cuba. Florida is a critical state in presidential elections, so no presidential hopeful or President has been willing to soften the official US hardline approach to Cuba, in particular any change to the trade embargo.
But now a US Government, albeit headed by a lame-duck president, has defied the exiles and the world has not fallen in. It may well be that whoever wins the next election will call the exiles’ bluff and adopt a sensible policy on Cuba. The embargo is a foolish policy. It causes great hardship among the Cuban people. It also gives Mr Castro an obvious scapegoat for every shortage and malfunction in the Cuban economy. Most of these failures should rather be laid at the door Mr Castro’s unworkable communist policies. The embargo gives Mr Castro a handy external bogey. If the embargo were lifted, the Castro regime would quickly fall and Elian might grow up in a democracy in his own country within his own family.