Pax Cubanus?

In 1959, the United States supported Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.  The U.S. did not particularly like him but he was not a communist and as for the qualities that made him a horrible leader, the U.S. had to accept it until something better came along.  Fidel Castro, a lawyer who had taken to the mountains and demanded equality and freedom for the Cuban people, stoked that hope.  Once in power, he proved to be as morally bankrupt and murderous as his predecessor.  The U.S. responded by cutting off diplomatic ties to the island and this past week, with no visible change in the government’s behavior, President Barack Obama has ventured into yet another ill-conceived major endeavor – normalizing relations with Cuba. 

Given the way some people lionize Sr. Castro and his number one henchman, Che Guevara, one can be forgiven for thinking that these two men were misunderstood humanitarians, seeking only the improvement of their people.  However, it was the oppressive, police state that Sr. Castro established and its growing relationship with another brutal dictatorship, the Soviet Union, which led to American concerns.  The attacks on his own population led to people pouring into the Caribbean on rafts that ranged from make-shift to sea-worthy, in an effort to reach the U.S.  Still today, thousands languish in prisons simply for their opinions while others walk free, but fear to speak honestly about the world around them. 

What makes this so frustrating as an observer of President Obama is the rashness in which he throws out shockingly dramatic proposals with little to no discussion nor, in hindsight, little to no follow through.  The lack of immediate plans of what to do about one thing or another is the product of the measures not fully planned out.  President Obama rushed to open Burma which is ruled by a military junta, complete with economic initiatives and an embassy proposal.  Today, it can be said that the military rulers have rolled back some openness and Burma’s future is no longer bright – despite the president’s “beneficent” moves.  The U.S. relaxed restrictions upon North Korea and Iran and even the most bright-eyed optimist would have to say that there are reservations about the success of either move. 

Burma is the most analogous example of the danger of what the president is trying to do with Cuba.  The president says that economic engagement and increase exposure to the rest of the world will make a difference in Cuba.  The fact is, only the U.S. has placed this economic sanction on Cuba – the rest of the world still trades with the island nation but where is the improvement?  Presidential supporters say the Castro brothers have no choice as their people are suffering.  They’ve been suffering since the early 20^th-century.  Still, President Obama has taken the paradigm that if only Cuba had the internet and access to American dollars, change would occur.  In doing so, he did not make any demands of the island for democratic reform, the release of political prisoners which has quadrupled in the last four years, or any other multiple measures that would warrant diplomatic engagement.   

This article is not to criticize the idea of possibly engaging Cuba but two important considerations make the president’s move suspect – one, the lack of forethought as to how to do it and two, the lack of demands of the Castro regime to help their own people.  When Cuba opens up, I will be first in line to visit and spend my dollars.  It has been on my bucket list for some time.  However, unless we can make some significant dents into the Cuban police state and its impact on the Cuban people, it should be caveat emptor.  Until our rhetoric matches our philosophy, a government empowered by the will of the govern, nothing will change in Cuba.

Two Deaths, Two Lessons

In the last couple of weeks, there have been two significant deaths in the world of sports.  First, 25-year-old Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes was killed when a ball struck him behind the ear where his helmet did not protect.  Second, famed Montreal Canadien hockey player Jean Beliveau died after a long and impactful life at the age of 83.  Mr. Hughes’ death and M. Beliveau’s life have raised questions about modern sports and the athletes that play them. 

Phillip Hughes was a rising star in the world of cricket, scoring 198 in his very first test match when Australia played Sri Lanka.  He was setting records and turning heads as a potential superstar in the field of cricket.  Mr. Hughes was batting in a match against a rival team in Australia when a bowler’s bouncer struck just below the ear.  He was placed in a medically induced coma before finally losing his life.  It has engendered a discussion on the safety of sports.  The sport most analogous to cricket in the U.S., baseball, is going through a similar soul-searching phase.  The question is whether such a campaign necessary? 

When you consider the benefit of sport, many will bring up the challenge it poses for its athletes, the spirit of competition, the development or revelation of character and teaching the importance of endurance.  The possibility of injury also teaches the importance of preparation and playing the game correctly.  So, to what extent should we make the game safe?  Certainly, there should be some efforts to prevent obvious possible injuries.  However, sports cannot be made safe-proof.  Whether talking about cricket, football, hockey or whatever, we can do many things but if the changes alter the nature of the sport, I’m not sure I’m in favor of it.  We cannot regulate against the rare, freak injuries.  While the world mourns the death of Phillip Hughes, cricket associations should not over-react to something that has happened twice in a hundred years.   

On another issue, there is a concern on the kind of athlete we are creating.  Jean Beliveau began his career with the Montreal Canadiens in 1950 and retired from the team and hockey in 1971.  Not only was he a prolific player, earning Hall of Fame honors in 1972 and having his name adorning the Stanley Cup 17 times, he is known equally and to many, more so, as a great human being.  At the end of his career, he set up a foundation that later morphed into the Society for Disabled Children, working his entire life for the betterment of such children.  He rejected two Canadian prime ministers who offered him prestigious government positions to be with his family and saying such positions should be elected, not appointed.  He was made a knight of the National Order of Quebec and has been awarded several honorary doctorates.  He spent his life in service to others. 

What type of athletes do we create today?  We are creating single-minded individuals who are taught that their way through this world is athletics – indeed, they are taught it is what makes them special.  So, there efforts go to that and nothing else – they are willing to do anything to strive and succeed to win.  However, in doing whatever it takes to win, some athletes not only misunderstand what it means to participate in sports but they misunderstand the value of winning.  One certainly would be hard-pressed to find the like of Jean Beliveau.  In short, most of today’s athletes are not impressive partly because we don’t expect them to be anything else. 

Over the last few weeks, two deaths have taught two lessons.  One is how fleeting life is and the importance of embracing what we have and the experiences we seek.  Mr. Hughes’ death does not speak to sports and its dangers, it speaks to the frailty of life.  Mr. Beliveau’s passing speaks to the potential of a man committed and compassionate.  Sports can teach what it means to live a full life and to live a purposeful life.  Both of these men were widely followed and adored by their respective countries.  Let’s hope their deaths prove as meaningful and impactful as their lives.