UN approves a ‘Gang Suppression Force’ for Haiti

By Jim Hodgson

The UN Security Council adopted a resolution last week that authorizes deployment of 5,500 troops to Haiti to replace the understaffed and underfunded Multinational Security Support Mission (referred to as MMAS in Haiti). The new Gang Suppression Force (FRG) has a mandate to “neutralize, isolate, and deter” gangs, secure infrastructure, and support institutional stability.

On Aug. 26, UN Secretary General António Guterres warned that humanitarian efforts in Haiti are “shamefully overlooked and woefully underfunded.” On Sept. 30, Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, welcomed creation of the FRG and said: “Efforts to restore security must be anchored in respect for human rights and go hand in hand with the reconstruction of the rule of law.”

Politico called the vote to create the FRG a “win” for the Trump administration. That alone should raise concern among the rest of us.

The UNSC decision came days after a police-directed drone attack on an alleged gang leader’s birthday party, where he was handing out presents to local children. At least eight children were killed.

Since June 2024, Haiti has been governed by a transitional council (CPT). Leadership rotates among a wobbly coalition from different sectors of Haitian society. It includes the civil society-led  Montana Accord network (named for the hotel where their accord was signed). Earlier, the Montana group had offered a “passarelle” or series of steps for an interim government as a way to move to new elections. (The terms of all Haitian politicians expired in 2023.) The CPT might have been able to move forward on that process, but Haiti is afflicted by a rising tide of gang violence that some argue is at least partly driven by Haiti’s richest people. 

In August, leadership of the CPT passed to Laurent Saint-Cyr, a former head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Haiti. At the same time, the prime minister is his fellow businessman Alix Didier Fils-Aimé.

To my suspicious mind, this means Haiti has returned to the same power structure that prevailed after 2011 under presidents Michel Martelly and Jovenel Moïse, and then the unelected leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Henry through early 2024 – men all backed by the United States, Canada, France and a powerful local oligarchy that has blocked every effort to ease Haiti’s inequality and to advance social goals, including education, health care, housing and public infrastructure. 

(Bear with me, please: you can read more of my own analysis towards the end of this piece.)

First, the news

According to the UN, at least 1.3 million Haitians remain internally displaced due to violence, with 5.7 million facing food insecurity. About 3,100 people were killed in violent incidents between January and June this year, and at least 2,300 grave violations against children have been recorded.

The UNSC resolution to create the Gang Suppression Force (known as FRG in French: Force de Répression des Gangs) was proposed in August by Panama and the United States. The resolution passed Sept. 30 with 12 votes in favour and none against. Permanent Security Council members China and Russia, along with rotating member Pakistan, abstained from the vote.

It replaces the MMAS, created just two years ago by the UN to support Haitian police forces, but never adequately funded. The new force would raise the personnel ceiling from 2,500 in the current mission to 5,550 personnel will grow from 2,500 to 5,550 personnel, with a UN Support Office providing logistical support amidst Haiti’s intersecting security, humanitarian, and political crises. But it will not be answerable to any Haitian authority, not even the Haitian National Police. 

Currently, it appears the new FRG would include the United States, Bahamas, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, and Kenya—in effect a reboot of the MMAS.

Memories of a previous UN intervention: UN trucks parked near Cap-Haïtien in February 2005 (Jim Hodgson photo).

Responses

Approval of the FRG was welcomed by the Caribbean regional group CARICOM, and the Organization of American States – even though the new OAS secretary-general, Albert Ramdin, had in June advocated dialogue with the gangs. That idea was rejected by the CPT. 

The Canadian government had earlier announced contribute $60 million toward gang-suppression efforts in Haiti. Mark Richardson, a Global Affairs Canada director general for the Caribbean, recently told the House of Commons foreign affairs committee that it is “too early” to have conversations about whether Canadian troops would be part of the new UN mission.

After the UN vote, U.S. Ambassador Henry Wooster pressed the CPT to hold elections:

  • 🕊️ Context: follows the UN Security Council’s green light for the deployment of the Gang Repression Force (FRG).
  • 🇺🇸 U.S. position: call for a clear plan and timetable for free and credible elections in Haiti.
  • 🧭 Stated objective: to prevent the transition from dragging on and to encourage the restoration of democratic institutions.
  • ⚖️ Political challenge: Washington wants to link security stabilization to an inclusive and supervised electoral process.
  • 🕰️ Next steps: consultations between the Haitian government and international partners on implementation of the FRG and of an electoral timetable.

More critical views are offered by the Haïti Liberté newspaper. One article describes the rationale offered by China and Russia for not vetoing the resolution. It adds that Guyana, Algeria, Sierra Leone, and Somalia sought to insert language that called for “full respect for the sovereignty and political independence of Haiti,” but their proposal was rejected by the U.S. Denmark, Greece, South Korea, and Slovenia “advocated for strengthening the text with language on compliance with international law, including international human rights law,” but “the US apparently consistently supplemented these additions with the qualifier ‘as applicable’.”

The same article quotes Haïti Liberté director Berthony Dupont questioning proposed use of the UN regular budget for operational and logistical support of this force. 

“In the context of the [UN]’s financial crisis, caused largely by the irresponsible actions of its largest contributor [the U.S.], expecting significant funding to support a new initiative that exists only on paper, and which lacks a sustainable foundation and clear prospects, is naive, to say the least. Let us put it straight: if that contributor failed to provide the funds it promised for the MMAS, what guarantee do we have that anything will be different this time?”

In Port-au-Prince, the human rights group Collectif Défenseurs Plus told Alterpresse that it recognizes that “international assistance has become inevitable” in the face of an overwhelmed HNP and unprecedented violence. But it demands guarantees: accessible accountability mechanisms, zero tolerance for any human rights violations, and uncompromising support for Haitian institutions.

“The Haitian crisis is above all political,” the collective insists, warning that the FRG must not become a crutch for a power lacking legitimacy, but rather create a space for an inclusive transition and transparent elections.

Between hopes for restored security and fears of another international failure, the success of the FRG will depend as much on its ability to break the criminal grip as on the will of Haitian actors to rebuild a credible state. As the Defenders Plus Collective emphasizes, “security is a right, and so is sovereignty.”

How might Haiti be better served?

“While it is important to address the consequences of gang violence, influential foreign actors in Haiti should do more to address its root causes,” writes Roromme Chantal, a political science professor at l’Université de Moncton. 

“To this end, research demonstrates that conflict resolution such as the one in Haiti should be approached in a manner that allows for the participation of local groups (official authorities, civil society representatives, grassroots organizations), providing them, if necessary, with the funding, logistical means, and technical capacity to implement carefully targeted programs.”

My thoughts

I find myself thinking again of anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot. He wrote a book called State Against Nationin the years following the end of the Duvalier dictatorship. He argued that the Haitian state is relatively autonomous from the nation: all problems are turned into political problems, but the state – much less the political class – is not the same as the society. If we listen, we may find that the Haitian people have a project that is different from that imagined in the proposed solutions that focus too narrowly on the state. In another book, Silencing the Past, he argued that historical narratives are often silenced: even the truth about Haiti’s revolution, history’s most successful slave rebellion that made Haiti the “first nation to embrace an equity and human rights approach by permanently banning the slave trade from the first day of its existence.”

If anyone were listening, they might find that Haitians are more interested in communal solutions and local democracy. This would be something more akin to the “mandar obedeciendo” (to rule by obeying the bases, the grassroots) advocated by the Zapatistas in southern Mexico than whatever Haitian elites and their neoliberal allies abroad are proposing, which seems a lot like “duvalierisme sans Duvalier” – reproduction of a totalitarian state, a predator state: one that is safe only for the rich.

Drone attacks in the Caribbean have Canadian connections

By Jim Hodgson

Separate incidents of use of explosive drones by the U.S. military to attack alleged Venezuelan drug-traffickers and by Haitian police to attack local gang leaders may have Canadian connections.

The Canadian ecumenical coalition Project Ploughshares reported Monday (Oct. 6) that a Canadian-made high-tech camera system was used to attack two boats that the United States said were carrying drugs. CBC News analysed the Ploughshares report, compared it to product manuals and previously released videos and spoke with former military and defence industry experts, concluding that it is highly likely Canadian tech was involved in surveillance during the operations.

Project Ploughshares and CBC reports on the U.S. attacks and their Canadian connection. The full Ploughshares report is here.

“There has to be more human rights oversight,” said Kelsey Gallagher, a senior researcher with Project Ploughshares. “We are seeing Canadian weapons being misused.” Founded in 1976, Project Ploughshares is the peace research institute of the Canadian Council of Churches. 

Global Affairs Canada told CBC that it is “aware of the U.S. operation and is monitoring the situation.”

The United States has said it used drones three times to attack boats it alleges were carrying drugs, but provided no evidence of drug-trafficking. The Ploughshares report shows that the U.S. military used a Canadian-made L3Harris WESCAM MX-Series sensor system for tracking and surveillance of boats that were struck as they sailed from Venezuela in the first two of three strikes reported last month.

Drone attack in Haiti’s capital kills 8 children

Meanwhile, a police-directed drone strike on a birthday party in Port-au-Prince that killed at least nine people (most of them children) and wounded 17 others has drawn attention to drones provided to Haiti by Canada. 

The explosions happened Sept. 20 in Cité Soleil, a large, impoverished neighbourhood controlled by Viv Ansanm, a powerful coalition of criminal gangs that the U.S. has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

Al Jazeera news service said the drones used in the operation were supplied by Canadian police. Successive Canadian governments have long maintained programs of assistance and training to Haitian police. 

Months earlier, Global Affairs Canada told CBC that it was “concerned” about reports of extrajudicial executions, a violation of international human rights law. GAC did not clarify if Ottawa knew of cases in which Canadian-provided drones had been used for lethal purposes in Haiti. It said Haiti had agreed that the equipment provided would not be used “to commit or facilitate any violation of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.”

On Oct. 2, UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Türk said Haiti’s use of lethal force against gangs was disproportionate and likely unlawful.

Volker Türk (left); Google News headlines in June regarding Erik Prince and his new role in fighting the gangs of Haiti.

Speaking in Geneva to the UN Human Rights Council, Türk said police units had summarily executed 174 people for alleged gang affiliation this year while government drone strikes against alleged gang members in Port-au-Prince had killed at least 559 people to date, including 11 children.

“Most of these drone strikes are likely unlawful under international human rights law,” Türk added.

Canada is legally bound to ensure that its export of military goods does not contribute to violations of international law. Compared to ongoing controversy over Canada’s arms exports to Israel – often shipped via the United States – Canada’s indirect involvement in these drone incidents in the Caribbean may be relatively limited, but seem to reveal a pattern of disregard for human rights consequences of commercial deals in our neoliberal world.

In March this year, the Haitian government hired Vectus Global, a company run by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, to operate drones.

Two days after the drone strike on the birthday party, the UN Security Council approved a new Gang Suppression Force for Haiti. I’ll share more about that (and Canada’s contribution) in days ahead.

Trump revives “big stick” approach to Latin America

by Jim Hodgson

With all of my passion for justice and in the face of so many gross injustices, I can get paralyzed. And with Trump in power next door, there is always something new to distract us from what went before or from demanding freedom for captives or the release of the #EpsteinFiles.

Just today, he threatened Canada again. #ElbowsUp, still.

Yesterday, it was a plan to end Israel’s war in Gaza that even the New York Times admits “checks every box on Israel’s wish list.” It does nothing to strengthen Palestine or assist recovery after the genocide, and will impose a new, colonial-style authority on the people. 

Let’s step back for a moment.

Last week, I was going to write about Trump’s efforts to rescue his far-right cronies in Argentina and Brazil. Here’s a short version.

Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, faces a collapsing peso and political setbacks. Milei’s chainsaw approach to slashing government was a model for Trump and Elon Musk. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sept. 22 that Washington is ready to do “whatever is necessary” – from central bank swaps to direct peso purchases or buying Argentine debt through the Treasury’s Stabilization Fund. The moves are intended to ease political opposition to Milei that has grown as the economy collapses. Milei – already dependent on a $20 billion IMF package – sought U.S. support ahead of congressional elections in October. Investors have been pulling money out from Argentina since Milei’s party lost an election in Buenos Aires province on Sept. 7, provoking worry that he will soon lack legislative support to advance his agenda. 

Front-page of a Buenos Aires newspaper shows Trump managing the rescue plan for Argentina’s Milei. Right: response from Occupy Democrats.

Earlier, Trump imposed a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil, claiming that Brazil engages in unfair trade practices and that the government is engaged in a “witch hunt” against Trump’s ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro was convicted earlier this month of attempting a coup after voters dumped him from office. He was sentenced to more than 27 years in prison, sparking Trump’s ire. The present Brazilian government called the U.S. move “a new attempt of undue interference in Brazilian internal affairs.”

When he spoke of the U.S. rescue of Argentina’s Milei, Bessent told reporters that the Trump administration hoped to solidify what it sees as a rightward shift in Latin American countries, including potentially Colombia. (Colombia is now government by a left-centre coalition led by President Gustavo Petro, who cannot succeed himself. His party is currently selecting a new candidate.) 

New and old threats

Bessent’s move came hours before Trump took centre stage at the United Nations General Assembly to press his MAGA-style policies on the rest of the world. 

In the speech, Trump threatened to “blow out of existence” Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro responded with a plan to declare a state of external unrest to enable rapid mobilization in defence of Venezuela. He had earlier sent a letter to Trump, proposing direct talks. When asked about the letter, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said it was “full of lies” and said the administration still views Maduro as an “illegitimate leader.”

Trump’s threat came after he moved warships into the south Caribbean and after recent attacks on Venezuelan fishing boats (alleged without evidence to be carrying drugs). Trump and his minions seem determined to revive the worst applications of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, from the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine to Teddy Roosevelt’s “big-stick” diplomacy in the early 20th century.

A recent US government document revealed the Trump administration plans to redirect $1.8 billion in foreign aid toward a new “America First” strategy, Reuters news agency reported Sept. 24. It would give priority to neutralizing “Marxist, anti-American regimes” in Latin America. The report said $400 million would support activities to end illegal immigration to the US, counter China, and “confront the Marxist, anti-American regimes of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.” The document, known as a Congressional Notification, follows news that the upcoming National Defense Strategy will also pivot the U.S. away from a focus on adversaries like China and Russia to instead prioritize efforts in the Americas.

But not everyone serving Trump is onside with these approaches. On Sept. 29, the Washington Post reported that eight current and former officials have said there is a deep rift between the political appointees at the Pentagon and the military leaders there. Reflecting on the Post report, historian Heather Cox Richardson said that War Secretary Pete Hegseth “is withdrawing forces from Europe, reducing the concentration of power and consolidating commands abroad while focusing on using the military in the U.S. and neighboring countries.“

Among Trump administration opponents to use of force to provoke regime change in Venezuela is Richard Grenell, Trump’s special envoy to the country, said Drop Site News on Sept. 29. Grenell has successfully re-opened channels for export of Venezuelan oil to the United States. Grenell and his supporters say diplomatic negotiation is the best way to protect U.S. economic interests. Among those who oppose Grenell is U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.