By Black Alliance,Kim Ives

Copyright haitiliberte

“There’s no other crisis that’s bigger in the Western Hemisphere… than this one in Haiti,” said U.S. Chargé d’Affaires to Haiti Henry Wooster in a Sep. 22, 2025 press conference in New York on the margins of the United Nations’ annual General Assembly.

Washington has a lot riding on its new “Gang Suppression Force,” which it proposed to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on Aug. 28 to replace the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, whose mandate ends on Oct. 2.

To start with, the GSF aims to have 5,500 troops (both soldiers and police) rather than the MSS’s 1,000 police officers.

Secondly, Washington seeks to have the UN’s “peace-keeping” trust funds pay for the GSF’s logistics. Financial shortfalls made logistics the MSS’s Achilles heel. But as U.S. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said: “Battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.”

Finally, the GSF would not be answerable to any Haitian authorities, like the Haitian National Police (PNH). Rather it will be able to wage war directly on armed neighborhood groups, many of which have revolutionary aspirations.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) called an emergency demonstration in front of the UN on Sep. 30, the day of the UNSC’s vote on the GSF proposal. Just over a dozen protestors called on the council to reject “this proposed military force… [which] would have a Chapter 7 deployment, be paid by the UN, and supported by the Organization of American States [OAS] and CARICOM countries, in direct violation of the Declaration of the Americas and the Caribbean, specifically as a zone of peace,” as explained JP, a BAP member, in a statement to the assembled. “In other words, this force would be given a blank check by the so-called ‘international community,’ to do whatever U.S. imperialism commands it to do in Haiti.”

Many anti-imperialists and supporters of Haitian self-determination had hoped that Russia or China would veto the resolution. But that was not to be. The UNSC passed Resolution 2793, with 12 in favor (U.S., France, England, Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia) and three abstaining (Russia, China, Pakistan).

Both Russia and China explained in their statements that it was largely pressure from the OAS and CARICOM that prevented them from wielding their veto.

“Despite China’s significant disagreements with this draft resolution, we are not blocking its adoption in light of Haiti’s dire security situation and the concerns and appeals of the international community, not least those of the Secretary General and regional countries [our emphasis],” said China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong.

“The decisive factor for us was the opinion of the Haitian authorities and neighboring states, who strongly requested that we not obstruct the document’s adoption [our emphasis],” said Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzya.

Nonetheless, both countries sharply laid out their objections to the U.S.-concocted GSF.

China said that the resolution lacked “careful study and thorough deliberation,” being “ambiguous on several critical issues.” Fu Cong said that the U.S. “should first provide detailed explanations on such key questions as the force’s composition, 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.”

Instead, Washington “has consistently failed to provide meaningful information on these matters, insisting instead that the council first adopt the resolution,” Fu continued. “First, this approach, which demands that the Council issue a carte blanche on matters critical to the Haitian people’s lives and safety while shirking concrete responsibility, amounts to treating the Council as a rubber stamp. Second, this draft resolution risks exacerbating Haiti’s already complex and dire situation.”

He continued: “Resorting to military force to combat violence with violence at this juncture is not only unlikely to succeed but could further complicate Haiti’s already intractable situation.”

In no uncertain terms, Fu stressed how Washington has been using the UN to carry out multiple military interventions in Haiti: “Over the past three decades, the Security Council has authorized three multinational force deployments and seven peacekeeping operations in Haiti, only to get in return persistent instability and recurring crisis, along with resentment and grievances towards the United Nations amongst the Haitian people.”

In his conclusion, Fu gave Washington both barrels: “Is the hasty deployment of yet another multinational force a responsible approach towards the Haitian people? Two years ago, a certain country [the U.S.] pledged solemnly that in order to ensure the success of the MSS, it would provide sustained funding. Today, this same country forgot, conveniently, its commitment, refusing to fulfill its financial obligations while demanding that the broader UN membership share responsibility for its proposed new force, all the while, owing nearly $800 million in unpaid peacekeeping assessments. We cannot help but ask how is it possible that one can demand a burden sharing from others, when itself fails to fill its own obligations and shifts plans onto others at will. If one single country is allowed to determine the use of peacekeeping assessments based on self-interest, then where is the collective will and decision making of the Security Council?”

He finished with: “We are deeply worried about the GSF’s operation and prospects.”

Russia’s Ambassador Nebenzya spoke next, continuing in the same vein as Fu: “Two years ago, we consented to establishing the MSS, despite our then-existing, and as later became evident, entirely justified, concerns…. No proper assessment of the MSS’s effectiveness, achievements, and failures has ever been conducted. Instead, the Council was presented with a new idea – to create a mission, independent of national and international oversight, with a virtually unrestricted mandate to use force against all who might be designated by the vague term ‘gangs.’”

He then turned to the key issue of finances: “Another issue is the proposal to use 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 MSS, what guarantee do we have that anything will be different this time?”

Russia then pointed out how Washington had introduced its new force at the last minute and then rushed everyone to approve it without review. “Our delegation, alongside others, attempted to obtain clarity on these and other key aspects of the new mission’s operations. These attempts were dismissed with the excuse that ‘there is no time for discussions.’ We are told that we must take action, and to do so immediately. This is exactly what happened with the MSS. So, I ask you, colleagues,… Do you not understand that ill-conceived and rushed steps can lead to outcomes entirely contrary to our goals?”

Nebenzya concluded by pointing out that Washington and its allies “show little interest in identifying the root causes of this crisis or in assessing its long-term consequences. Otherwise, they would not be trying to shift the responsibility for the Haitian crisis from themselves onto the entire international community.”

He also warned that the U.S. could use this GSF deployment to expand its operations into aggression against Haiti’s neighbors. “This initiative inspires even less trust in us given the escalating tensions in the Caribbean and the deployment of American armed forces near Venezuela’s shores. We have no confidence that it will not occur to the authors of today’s text to connect in some ‘creative’ way their military activity against alleged drug cartels with the situation in Haiti.”

Nebenzya summed up the current moment by observing that “the root causes of the crisis [include] the long history of harmful military interference in the [Haiti’s] affairs. Interveners and foreign missions come and go, often leaving behind more problems than achievements.”

The U.S. intends to control the GSF through a body called the “Standing Group of Partners” (SGP), sort of a new and improved version of the “Core Group” that it rolled out after its coup against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. Currently, the SGP would include the U.S., the Bahamas, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, and Kenya. In short, it is a reboot with the countries involved in the MSS.

It is ironic that Guyana, Algeria, Sierra Leone, and Somalia sought to insert language that called for “full respect for the sovereignty and political independence of Haiti” into the resolution’s text, but their proposal was rejected by the U.S., according to the independent publication Security Council Report.

The publication also noted that 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 GSF is constructed with a spaghetti of ill-defined corollary agencies such as the United Nations Support Office in Haiti (UNSOH), the already existing United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH), the SGP, the OAS, and the PNH. This is no accident. It is a way to create confusion, overlap, and ambiguity so that the U.S. can obfuscate and hide its military aggression in Haiti and its financial monkey-business siphoning off UN trust funds.

“I only hope that the whole mission crashes and burns more spectacularly than the MSS did,” said Haïti Liberté director Berthony Dupont. “Then maybe Russia and China will see that it is better next time to just veto these deadly U.S. schemes. Unfortunately, the GSF may well bring much more death and destruction than its predecessors. But this will just generate more people rising up against U.S. imperialism in Haiti and around the world.”