And what if the US secretly imposed its position on Haitian political actors

During an official visit to Haiti, the US Permanent Representative to the UN, Kelly Dawn Knight Craft, met with an embryo of the Haitian political class including the head of state, Jovenel Moïse, around the crisis. The ambassador, as the social networks suggest, did not impose a prefabricated plan on the actors. However, she said she hoped that the political actors would eventually become aware and reach an inclusive political agreement to find a peaceful outcome to the situation.

Contrary to what the participants at the November 20 meeting said that the United States made no proposal or imposition on them, the ambassador left after dictating the Truth administration’s stance. This time, she does not insist on the theme dialogue but argues that the US remains attached to democratic principles. And, as a result, she said to return to the folds with the hope that the Haitians will clear a channel of communication in order to find a political agreement likely to find a happy thaw to the political marasmus.

While the opposition constantly calls on CoreGroupe to release the tenant of the national palace, the administration of Donald Trump, through his embassy in Haiti, has never missed the opportunity to call actors to dialogue to resolve the crisis that festers from days to days. Through the November 20 meeting, the US representative echoed the same refrain but in another language: an inclusive political agreement is needed.

Having entered into the Marriott agreement on November 10, the opposition seems to have no problem in this regard. According to the representative of PHTK at the meeting, Lyné Balthazar, all actors are convinced of the need for a new political agreement that will include the head of state, because, he says, the agreement of Marriott has not been inclusive. He also informs that it is also the reading of the ambassador. However, according to Senator Évallière Beauplan, no negotiation is possible with the tenant of the national palace who believes hard that the transition is coming soon.

In one way or another, the international community, far from supporting the approach of the opposition, hides behind a diplomatic speech teeming with unspoken. If Mr. Craft makes it clear that she did not come to support the tenant of the National Palace, she does not say that she lets him go. In the meantime, the opposition men are waiting for the US reaction once the diplomat’s report is received. For the time being, the demonstrations are losing their effectiveness and the Marriott deal may be useless at the pace of the situation. If the stranger is able to gather them around the same table, is he not able to make them melt the Marriott agreement and turn their back on their pride not to cohabit?