Exclusive interview with Henry T. Wooster

Widlore Merancourt : Thank you, Ambassador. Thanks for being here. I appreciate the time. In your Senate hearing, more than a month ago, you said the US objective in Haiti is stability. That means no collapse of the state and no mass illegal migration to US shores. Beyond preventing collapse and migration, what is the US vision for Haitians themselves so they have a viable future in their country?

Henry Wooster : So you’re right, that stability we put is the paramount issue. Why? Because, as I think I said in that testimony, and certainly, as I would say now, if we don’t achieve that, in this current circumstance, where we have the threats we do against the state, all our conversations about what we would like are interesting, but they are academic rather than real.

So in this case, in terms of our interests, we want Haiti to have the responsibility for its own future. I know that can sound hokey, and at times, has sounded. Do you know the term hokey — can sound corny or a little— but that is, in fact, our policy. We want not to be having hands on things.

I know this runs sort of contrary to the conspiracies and some of the fantasies that people have about the depredations of the United States and all the things that we want to do and control and manipulate. We want Haiti to be in Haiti’s hands. We want the country to be in the hands of its people, whether its people are the people it elects, the people who run its commerce, the people who run its schools. Haiti is the project of Haitians and Haitian people. I’m not pointing to a socialist republic, per se, but what I am pointing to is this is a country and a sovereign enterprise and a sovereign project that is that of its people and of its populace. It’s not a project of the United States. It’s an ally of the United States, a friend of the United States.

How does Haiti fit into the broader US hemispheric strategy?

Well, I think every Haitian knows, and certainly all of your readers or listeners know, and all of us sitting in this room know, you guys are very close to our shores, right? Whether you measure it by flight time or you measure it by nautical miles, or however you measure it, you’re really close to us. So, we don’t have a choice. And I’m speaking here in a realpolitik, geopolitical sense, i.e., what most countries, when they think strategically, do. Who’s in our neighborhood? You’re in our neighborhood along with a lot of others, of course, but you’re in our neighborhood.

We don’t want anything in our neighborhood that’s going to be a threat. Or — threat sounds maybe a little dramatic — it’s not a threat, it’s a problem in the neighborhood.

We want the neighborhood to be pacific, peaceful, stable. If the neighborhood is also prosperous, lovely, and people are ecstatic with one another and with the United States, all the better.

But what we need, what we require for our own stability and security, is that our neighborhood is stable. That means economically. It means politically and in every other aspect.

That’s what we’re concerned about here in Haiti, and we would be concerned about that with anyone who is in our neighborhood, anyone who is close to our borders or our shores.

So that’s the objective here. We want Haiti to be stable, because it affects the stability, not only of Haiti qua Haiti, but it affects, obviously, Hispaniola. It affects, obviously beyond that, the region — the Caribbean, if you prefer that term.

And then it was out of fashion for a while, the notion of Monroe Doctrine and backyard, which had become impolitic, at least for the United States — now it is politic again, right? So, we want our neighborhood — I’m not going to use the word backyard, right — but we want our neighborhood, we want our region to be stable without concerns that will affect or harm our interests, whether they are commercial, economic or security, in the sense of physical security.

The current administration is pushing to end the Temporary Protected Status for Haitians. It’s also pushing for the end of other programs that allowed Haitians to live and work in the United States. You’ve been in Haiti for a while now. What do you think the impact would be if we were to have massive deportations to Haiti?

So, my job as an American diplomat, and certainly as chief of mission here, is to execute the President’s policy. That means there is a policy. He and the senior officials of the United States government who are empowered to make those decisions — and it’s true of all countries, but I can speak only officially for my own — they have made a decision. This is the policy. This is their choice. This is what we will be doing. My job is to execute that policy. So, the notion of what Henry Wooster thinks about something — in my professional world, honestly, while intellectually it’s a completely appropriate question, professionally it’s one that I can only point you to the policy. My job is to lead the execution and the implementation of that policy.

But don’t you think giving advice and counsel and feedback with regard to what the consequence of a specific policy could be, or might be, is part of your purview?

Yeah, it is part of my purview, and it’s a responsibility I take very seriously, and I expect my team to take very seriously. It’s our professional credo, right? We provide professional counsel, we provide our best professional judgment in all places, in all situations, and we should, and that should be an expectation of us as career diplomats. But it is the decision of the chief executive to make the determination about — thank you for your thoughts. Thank you for your feedback. Thank you for your input. Here’s what we’re going to do.

How many US private contractors are currently operating in Haiti, and what are they doing?

I don’t know how many are here, because how many are here and what they’re doing is a product of what the Haitian government has decided by virtue of its contractual relationship with that private entity. That’s not a relationship with the United States government. It’s not a payment of the United States government, not through Haiti to them, not to them. It’s entirely a project between the government of Haiti and that private military contractor. So, are we aware they’re here? And do we know they’re American, or at least the ownership of the company? Of course, just as we would if Boeing were here, or, you know, an investor were here in some other capacity.

Then tell us about the ones you know and what they are doing.

That is a private contractual relationship. But the public knowledge of what they’re doing here — if you mean the military or quasi-military role, right — they work under the Haitian Task Force. That task force reports to your government. They don’t report to us. They don’t work for us. We have an interest for the obvious reason that they are here to combat the gangs, right? That is an interest of the United States and a lot of other people.

I’m pulling this information from your Congress address. Is Erik Prince’s company Vectus Global the company operating the so-called kamikaze drones?

You’d have to go to the Haitian government about that.

But you didn’t dispute that…

No, and I don’t, and I don’t dispute it here. But again, the particulars of the relationship between a private military contractor, which happens to be a US company — that relationship, the functions and the particulars of the contract it has with the Haitian government, it’s a relationship between the Haitian government and that contractor. I am an interested observer. I have equities because, again, what they’re doing — which is combating the gangs — I’m and again, the United States government has an equity, because we’re all of us looking, and as is the Haitian government, we’re all — and the international community — we’re all looking at combating the gangs, reasserting the authority of the state. So, we’re interested in it. But again, the terms of the direction and what they do, what they don’t do — those particulars are not for me.

Are you saying you don’t know which company is using the explosive drones?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m simply saying that, rather than you and I go down a rabbit hole of — let’s talk about a US private military contractor — I’m telling you that the relationship…

But you are affirmative that it’s a US contractor using — I mean, dropping — the kamikaze drones.

A US contractor has a contract with the government of Haiti, and it has a contract to combat the gangs.

To combat the gangs and dropping the drones.

Yeah, I don’t think there’s any secret here about what they’re doing.

No — it’s because my next question is tied to it. Local doctors and human rights organizations say the drones help push back the gangs, but also killed dozens of civilians, including children. Are you concerned about civilian casualties caused by the so-called kamikaze drones dropped by US companies?

We are concerned about civilian casualties caused by anyone — primarily caused by the terrorist gangs, raping, murdering. The most recent example of which we had was what, last weekend, or a week ago, up in the Artibonite.

More than 70 people dead.

I mean, that is the kind — I would like to see the righteous — I would like to see the sorts of things I get, and the questions I get. I’m not talking just about you, but from anywhere, anywhere at all. I’d like to see a bit of that righteous anger. And it’s righteous because it’s real. When innocent people are harmed, whether they’re killed, they’re raped, they’re robbed, they’re bruised, their houses are destroyed, their property is taken or destroyed — that is wrong. It’s just wrong, right? That is in the book, that’s just wrong. All human beings can get that.

But I would like to see, every now and again, a little bit of the righteous anger directed at what I see very often: this sort of seduction of Barbecue, you know, being interviewed by all of the premier outlets worldwide, turning him into a Robin Hood figure. This is the kind of stuff that really cheeses me off, because while you are correct that if people are harmed, hurt, killed, wounded, or whatever the particulars may be — by whether it’s drones or any other such activity — yeah, that, of course, concerns us.

It concerns us also on a level that’s pragmatic, beyond the simple moral right and wrong. And the pragmatic aspect that concerns us is: when in a conflict zone, the people who are fighting on behalf of the state or the government start to harm the people who are not combatants in between, you risk driving people into the arms where you don’t want them to go. So yes, we’re concerned.

Then what does accountability look like for US companies and individuals involved in the killing of civilians in Haiti?

That’s a particular question that must be directed to those who hire them. So, whether the companies are Venezuelan, Singaporean, American, or whoever they may be, that’s a question to the organizations that hire them. In this case, your question is best directed — particularly on accountability — to the matter of the authority that hired them and has a contract with them, and that happens to be the state.

You don’t think there is a need for accountability for US companies…

I didn’t say that. That’s not what I’m saying. You’re extrapolating. That’s not what I said. What I said was: the accountability — because accountability is a specific mechanism and a measure — that accountability has to be taken between those who are conducting a duty and those who are paying them to conduct a duty. That’s where the accountability space lies, right. It’s not with me because there is an incidental fact that they happen to be registered as, or citizens of, companies — some of them are US. That’s incidental to the question.

You said in your address to Congress that they have a license from the US government to operate these drones and operate in Haiti. Don’t we have anything on the books to hold them accountable?

When you get into the delicate matter of licenses, you’re going to reach a limit about what I can talk about. But the good news for you is it’s not a limit about what anybody else can talk about. The Department of State — you know, we have different subsections, we call them bureaus. The bureau that handles licensing for things like this — weapons, ammunition, so forth — is the Political-Military Bureau of the US Department of State. I would direct you to them for the particulars of licensing. I would be exceeding my boundaries if I were talking about…

But do you think there should be accountability for US contractors killing civilians in Haiti?

You’re being very artful in your attempt to draw me on this, but I can tell you that this is a space where I’m going to draw a line. I’m going to encourage you to speak to those who hire them, not to me to comment, because it turns into commentary — because I don’t have an official relationship with them.

Do you have a relationship with Erik Prince?

I know who he is.

Do you talk to him?

Yes, I talk to him.

Do you talk to him about Haiti?

Well, more than I talk to him about Guyana or any place else.

Could you share what is the extent of the relationship between the US Embassy — you, in your official capacity — and Erik Prince?

Yeah, look, let me be very clear and frank with you. There is no secret agenda going on here. There’s no voodoo or magic that you’re not seeing, right? Erik Prince is an American citizen. He’s also an American business owner. Yes, his companies and so forth — or whatever, you know, shells or whatever they — I don’t mean like something inappropriate, I just mean one that’s called this that works in, say, the border, one that’s called this that does drones, what have you. Yes, they work here. But again, I can’t offer you commentary on a relationship I don’t have. That official relationship between the state of Haiti — who is paying him — and the work he does for them on their behalf, on the contract that you have, is not a space that I own. Do I have thoughts about it? I do. You know, any sentient being has thoughts. But that’s not an appropriate space for me to enter into here with you.

I’m happy you brought up the customs contract with Evergreen. Many lawyers we’ve talked to say this contract is unfair to Haiti because it will spark a massive transfer of wealth from Haiti to this private company. Are you concerned that these agreements may run counter to long-term US objectives in Haiti?

I’m not concerned, because anybody that would tell you that — and particularly if they would use the qualifier « massive » — clearly doesn’t know what’s in the contract.

Have you read the contract?

I’m familiar with the contract. The contract is not between us.

I understand. Do you think the contract is fair to Haiti?

Absolutely.

Why?

You’d have to look at the particulars. But again, anybody who makes the comment to you about — what was the term — « massive »? Clearly anybody who uses that phrase does not know what’s in the contract.

Was the US Embassy involved in this contract?

You know, you and I aren’t going to get very far if we keep talking all the time about Erik Prince, because that’s Erik Prince. That isn’t my work here. Erik Prince is a private American doing work here.

I’m thinking about your long-term objectives and even your short-term objectives. And I think there is a link between these contracts signed with the state, these actions by these US companies, and what the US claims are its goals in Haiti.

Be more explicit.

You say you want stability, and you want the state to provide stability and not to collapse. Historically, the Haitian state has been captured by all sorts of entities, including from the private sector. And analysts we talked to say this is a continuation of the same old playbook of private companies coming into Haiti and practically ripping off the country. What do you answer to that?

I’m familiar with that analysis, if we can call it that. It’s a remarkably prejudicial analysis that puts often emotions, ideologies, agendas foremost, and then reverse-engineers out of that to try to get things that will reinforce that perception or that conviction, as the case may be.

And there’s a difference between those who believe it as a perception — they perceive it and they think this is the case — and those who have it as a conviction, which is kind of like — you mentioned, I think before, a certain religious background, right? See, I’m going to assume you have a basic familiarity with people who take that very seriously — a conviction that’s nearly religious in its nature, that believes — and that’s the operative word — they use a creedal definition of belief, rather than one that’s more analytical in its nature, which is: let’s take a look at what we have for data. To use the modern term — facts, maybe a little passé these days — but let’s look at what we see, right? What do we have here? Look at that and then do your math. Take your variables, and come out with the sum. My concern when I hear these kinds of things is that we’ve started the other way around, right? Which is: let’s take our prejudices — and our fears, to be fairer, our anxieties — let’s take those and let’s lead, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. Let’s lead with that and color everything with that.

The US, in multiple statements, says it aims to curb gun trafficking into Haiti. What strategies are currently in place? What can you tell us about what results have been achieved?

If I tell you that we all know — meaning you and we know — that a good number of weapons that flow into Haiti come from the United States. I don’t think that’s a news story to anyone, right? And we all know, regrettably, that’s true.

What we don’t know is how much. So, what’s coming into Haiti from, let’s say, the Port of Miami, or wherever it comes from in the States — but the States, let’s just say, from the US — and how much might come from, say, Colombia or, I don’t know where. I don’t know, and I guarantee you, there’s no one who knows for a fact, because no one really has the whole 100% picture, right?

You’ve got a piece, she’s got a piece, I’ve got a piece, and the next guy, right?

But we know that, unfortunately, more weapons than ever — no weapon needs to be coming here illegally from the United States, and we’ve got too many coming here. That’s something we know. What’s the now? Where do we go from there? Do we go still further down, or do we move in a more affirmative direction?

I can tell you we are moving in a more affirmative direction, but it’s not where it needs to be. So, the source of weapons — let’s take the US as one of the big sources. Again, noting and acknowledging there are other sources, but let’s say the US. At the moment, we know they come mostly through the sea. They come here. Perhaps some come via one or another small aircraft or something — I would be speculating. They come here, and they come to the Dominican Republic, and they get over land here to Haiti.

I don’t know how many versus how many — you know, one versus the other, coming to one shore versus the other. I do not know that. But what we do know is this: US authorities, US federal authorities, have begun cracking down more. And it’s not just — I want you to understand — it’s not merely a question of willpower. It is a question also — I don’t know how much you know about container cargo — I know more about it than I want to know about it. And container cargo, basically shipping, right? So, a ship that’s large — that has, you know, any one of us has seen them, it’s floating out at sea — it’s got God knows how many hundreds and hundreds of containers on it.

And if you’re in a port that’s anywhere near busy — and most all of them are busier than the capacity — the ability for you, or any one device or person or persons, to inspect all of the items with surety, with certainty, in every single container — if you’re in the safest and busiest ports in the world, anywhere, much less ports that aren’t the safest or aren’t the busiest — the math on that is not heartening.

But we have — US federal law enforcement agencies have increased the arrests. These are discoverable. We have also, I know, through the embassy here, publicized those of these federal investigations that have netted people who were shipping weapons. Additionally, while we’re on this scene, we have also been going after people — including elites — and we’ve been very deliberate about that, who have been also fueling this. Maybe they don’t go to the gun store or dealer or whoever and buy the weapon themselves directly, but they’ve been fueling this, and we have been very deliberate about targeting them and going after them, and we’re proud of that, and we only intend to continue that which we are doing. Not all of it makes the news every day, and we will continue. And we call it the same thing you did — you used the word accountability. That’s exactly what we call it, same thing. And by the way, all of this anchored in what I told you at the outset and what you noted from the hearing: stability, stability, stability. We can’t have it if we don’t have these kinds of things.

The US funded and supported the Kenyan-led multinational security mission. But according to many experts we talked to, the mission failed, and it’s now facing a sexual misconduct scandal. Do you believe the US bears some responsibility for this failure, given that many experts, before the mission came…

Which failure are you talking about?

The mission not reclaiming the territories it was supposed to reclaim, not reopening the main roads that it was supposed to reopen, and also now facing a sexual abuse scandal. Do you think the US bears some responsibility?

Look, everyone bears responsibility in these kinds of cases, right? Because this is a multilateral effort — or a coalition, if you prefer that term — effort. This is not a unilateral, entirely state-owned enterprise of any one state — Haiti, the United States, Kenya. These things are the products of multiple things.

Look, here’s the stuff that people don’t appreciate. I don’t know that we would properly call it a counterfactual, but this is the stuff that people don’t appreciate. And I will tell you I didn’t, when I first came here, until I — by force of obvious circumstance — had to become more aware: how did this happen? How did that happen? And I think it’s unfortunate that people — and I understand it as a human being, as distinct from my hat as a diplomat — I get why people are simply trying to find — do you know that expression, to pin a tail on a donkey? Right? People are trying to find a blame, you know, something they can pin their disappointment on. I get it as a human being on an emotional level, but professionally, I will tell you it’s a little more complicated than that. And the truth is, it’s actually a lot more complicated than that.

Well, but it’s important to unpack it, because I think your readers or your audience need to know, and also you. And that is that when this was first called for — this kind of a force — nobody was willing to do it. And the Kenyans, bless their souls, said, « We’ll do it. » So wait — wait, this, because this is important for people to understand. They said, « We’ll do it. »

Haiti, and anyone who cared about Haiti, was nearly desperate. Who’s going to do this? They said, send us. There’s a line from Isaiah — « Send me, » right — in any event, they said, I’ll go. Then the enthusiasm was such: oh, really, you’ll do this hard thing. Yes, we’ll do it. Oh, great. All you have to do is get on a plane and fly there. We’ll provide all this other stuff. Didn’t quite work out that way. Armored vehicles — there’s a longer story we won’t go into — about how this armor was not compatible with that one. So if you blew a tire on this one, that one couldn’t help repair it — the armor from here not compatible with that. It goes on. It goes on. My point being: laying this at the feet of the Kenyans isn’t entirely fair, and it’s not an appropriate treatment of them and their willingness to step up and do a job no one on earth was willing to do. They were willing to do it.