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.

You Hear One Castro Lover…?

Last week, I mentioned the case of a Marine Corps sergeant who was dismissed from the service for comments made against the president of the United States. The sergeant was wrong and he received the consequences he deserved. However, a completely different case emerged this week dealing with Miami Marlins’ manager Ozzie Guillen. Mr. Guillen is a man known for saying outrageous and controversial things and the Marlins’ new skipper, in his first week on the job, came out of the gate firing on all cylinders.

To Time Magazine, Mr. Guillen said he respected Fidel Castro and his ability to hang on to power for so long. In 2008, he said that while he did not respect Mr. Castro’s philosophy, he admired the man’s ability to stay in power, surrounded by those who would push him out. On Tuesday of this week, the Marlins suspended their manager for five days, without pay and repeatedly assured its fan base, made up, in part, by Cuban refugees, that it will not tolerate such comments. However, can it be said that the Marlins do not tolerate free speech?

The manager has the right to say and to voice whatever opinion he wants, though now he suggests that his comments were more nuanced than what was reported. However, the Venezuelan-born baseball manager seems to have forgotten his surroundings and his new fan base. The state in general and the city in particular is home to one of the largest concentrations of Cuban exiles in the country. Mr. Guillen’s comments were about as ill-fitting as one wearing a “Che” shirt through Little Havana in Miami.

The manager has been quick to emphasize that he does not believe in or endorse the methods of Fidel Castro, as he also emphasized in 2008. However, activists demand his job and promise they will protest until he is fired. A firing could happen but it is not likely. Mr. Guillen was paid a huge contract to come to Miami and oversee a group of players that represent even more money as they play in a brand new ballpark. Still, the Marlins are very sensitive to their Cuban constituents, as they should be.

As for Mr. Guillen, he does have the right to say what he wants but with every right guaranteed us in the Constitution comes responsibilities. To what extent he can re-ingratiate himself with the Marlin fans is something we will have to wait and see. The question that began the blog was, do the actions of the team constitute a disregard for Mr. Guillen’s freedom of speech. In short, no. The manager represents a part of the leadership of the Miami Marlin organization and as such, his comments, intended or otherwise, are seen as reflections of team attitudes. Even in a case as blatant as this, where it is clear that the opinions were that of Mr. Guillen alone, he still is part of the face of the franchise. As such, he has a responsibility to the fan base and must be answerable to them.

Personally, I think the Cuban outrage, as legitimate as it is, can be used as a force of good. This is an opportunity to teach the real story behind Fidel Castro and his regime. As young people walk around with “Che” shirts on, celebrating a person responsible for the death of thousands on behalf of the Castro government, this is a chance to right a historical fallacy. As for the manager, who will have began this dialogue, perhaps Mr. Guillen has learned a lesson and might be permitted to stay.