In the game of tug-of-war, one team always ends up collapsing into the pit of mud.  As a result, both teams tug and pull their hardest, in an attempt to avoid the ugly fate.  But, unless the rope finally snaps, someone is bound to lose.  Well, when the rope is personified as a six-year-old boy, and the two teams are converted into two adverse countries, the stakes are automatically raised, and suddenly, everyone wants to play...and nobody wants to lose.  The problem is, it’s no longer a game.
 Elian Gonzales, the six-year-old Cuban boy, was found floating off the coast of Florida after his mother and a group of Cuban exiles had drowned during their attempt to flee from Cuba to the freedom of the United States.  Elian has since become the subject of endless debate amongst the Cubans and Americans.  His father, along with the Cuban government, is insistent that Elian be returned immediately to Cuba.  However, certain members of the US legislature, along with the US judicial system, believe that it would be in Elian’s best interest to remain in the United States, and reside with his relatives here (a great aunt and great uncle).  And, of course, society has its conflicting opinion.
 This tragic occurrence has without a doubt raised questions concerning legal, political, emotional, and ethical issues.  Should six-year-old Elian Gonzales remain in the United States, the country for which Elian’s mother sacrificed her life?  Or should Elian be returned to Cuba, his native, yet economically inferior country, where his father and family desperately await him?  While the arguments surrounding the debate appear to many to be in equilibrium, to me, the answer seems clear.
 In my opinion, there should never have been a question as to what should happen to this child.  Legally, Elian’s father now has sole custody of his son.  And should he ask that Elian be returned, his request should be honored without resistance.
 From a political view, I’m inclined to believe that the United States is acting in selfishness, as opposed to the compassionate image they are working to portray.  The way I see it, nearly every action the U.S. has taken in the past, has been in its own best interest, whether it was evident or not.  When you think about it, there really is no reason for us keep Elian in America, with limited family, when we are notorious for turning back hundreds of other exiles.  Perhaps we are simply trying to display the untouchable power The United States seems to think they have over other countries, Cuba in particular.  In this case, the welfare of the child is used to conceal the ulterior motive of a stubborn and arrogant American government.  By delaying the return of this young boy, the U.S. is doing little more than stirring the already boiling waters between America and Cuba.
 Ethically, I believe that Elian belongs with his father.  His father obviously loves his son very much, and if their lifestyle in Cuba were as horrible as the media tries to convey, then I think that he would prefer for Elian to remain in the States with his uncle and aunt.  Instead, he wants to have his son sent back to him.  And as I mentioned before, he has legal custody and his request should be honored.
 Although some may argue that Elian would have a better life in America, I think that returning home and being surrounded by people who love him and can relate to him is the best possible environment for the six-year-old, regardless of the financial issues.
 Elian Gonzalez has become a rope, being pulled by two opposing forces, whose poor relations with each other are refusing to let either of them let go.  While everyone claims to be seeking the best solution for the child, neither team is willing to jump in the mud pit.  And until one of them does, all the rest of us can do is pray that the rope doesn’t snap.

Krista Rae Depperschmidt
January 21, 2000