World News

The first issue is that the UN’s plan for arming people and sending them into Haiti is ambiguous. China wants definition. I think this is incredibly reasonable. If my country’s functioning government collapsed and the UN was sending in armed peacekeepers (not sure how I feel about that name since the ones in Haiti specifically have been accused of violating the human rights of the people whose human rights they’re supposedly there to protect.) I’d want the people sending them to send them with a clear objective and scope of action, while also having clear parameters on which they are not to step outside of.

The second concern is that China does not feel that a highly militarized approach currently is the best course of action. You can see in the text as to their reasons why. I’m iffy on this one, to be honest. Haitian police seem to be unable, unwilling, or not allowed to disrupt gang activity. Haitian gang leader (and former police officer) Barbecue did very little to hide his location or face in public, suggesting the police there should have been able to locate and detain him, yet for years - nothing. But, there are children operating in those gangs, and I’d like to not see bullets in their chests. So - you be the judge on this one.

The third one? This seems like a common complaint coming out of the UN members that are at odds with the West in general, and the United States specifically. It seems to come up with some frequency on the UN matters that I’m aware of, but I don’t know how often, since I’ve got my own profession to use most of my time. It appears that these countries are left out in the cold on conversations and then have policies they were supposed to involved in crafting, appearing at discussion without them even knowing about it. I’d be less interested in this one if I thought that the other items were not valid and moving on these policies would improve and save lives in Haiti. Regardless of if this policies are useful or not useful, helpful or harmful, if everyone allegedly welcome at the table isn’t actually welcome at the table - that’s sham democracy, collaboration, and cooperation.

The unstructured, unsupervised, and poorly parametered deployment of a militarized force in Haiti seems like it very much could wind up as another Smedley Butler situation in Haiti.

Copied and pasted the bulk of the reasonable complaints and the text’s requests for resolving those (except item two, which is complaining about how the United States is doing nothing to interfere with the arms moving from the USA into the hands of gangs).

First, this draft resolution is ambiguous on several critical issues. At its core, it authorizes under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a brand new gang suppression force with the mandate to conduct independently robust military operations. Based on the principles of respecting national sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, China has always taken a cautious stance on invoking Chapter VII mandates. We believe that out of accountability towards the Haitian people and the Security Council's decisions, the penholder should first provide detailed explanations on such key questions as the composition of the force, how to carry out its mandate, how to define the rules of engagement, how to avoid civilian casualties, and how to ensure effective decision-making, oversight, and accountability. These are the foundation for Council members to discuss the draft resolution. However, the penholder has consistently failed to provide meaningful information on these matters, insisting instead that the Council first adopt the resolution authorizing the Standing Group of Partners established just one month ago to assume full responsibility for these matters. This approach, which demands the Council issue a blank check on matters concerning the lives and safety of the Haitian people while giving away concrete responsibility, amounts to treating the Council as a rubber stamp.

Second, this draft resolution risks exacerbating Haiti's already complex and dire situation. Haiti's multifaceted crises are intertwined, and the security situation merely reflects what meets the eye. The root cause lies in the absence of a legitimate government and a vacuum in national governance, which has provided fertile ground and space for violent crimes. Currently, Haiti's political transition outlook is bleak, with gangs deeply entangled with political and business elites, and large numbers of civilians, including children, recruited into gangs. At this juncture, resorting to military force to combat violence with violence is unlikely to succeed, but could further complicate the already intractable situation. At the same time, Haitian gangs are growing increasingly powerful, many armed to the teeth, a phenomenon inextricably linked to an endless influx of weapons and ammunition into the country. Reports from UNODC and the panel of experts of the Haiti Sanctions Committee reveal that the flow of weapons and ammunition originating from the United States has never ceased, rendering the Security Council's arms embargo a dead letter. Allowing weapons to flow into the hands of gangs while pushing for the deployment of armed forces to operate in Haiti is a contradictory approach that risks plunging Haiti into greater security turmoil and exposing both the Haitian people and the troops deployed to heightened risks.

Third, this draft resolution is not the result of full consultation among Council members. After the Secretary-General presented his recommendations on improving Haiti's security situation this past February, the penholder failed to produce a concrete plan for full six months. Yet, just one month ago, it introduced, all of sudden, a draft resolution demanding the Security Council to swiftly decide on establishing a brand new gang suppression force. China and other Council members actively participated in consultations and raised many constructive questions. Given that huge differences among parties still remained, China and Russia proposed a temporary technical rollover of the MSS mission to allow more time for thorough discussion and consensus building. Regrettably, the penholder insisted on putting this highly contentious draft resolution to a vote. This not only undermines the solidarity and cooperation of the Council on the question of Haiti, but also harms the Council's credibility and authority.