President,

China expresses its deep concern over the dire situation in Haiti and profound sympathy for the tragic plight of the Haitian people. We support regional countries and the international community in providing assistance to Haiti. Two years ago, the Security Council authorized Kenya to lead a Multinational Security Support Mission, working alongside some CARICOM countries, to help the Haitian National Police improve the security situation. China highly commends the efforts made by the relevant countries over the past two years. However, due to the failure of a major donor country to fully honor its funding commitments, the mission has been much delayed in achieving full deployment and realizing its full potential.

The mandate of the MSS mission will expire on October 2. China supports the mission in continuing its role and stands ready to work with all parties to explore various feasible arrangements on its way forward. At the same time, we always maintain that for any decision of the Security Council to be effectively implemented, it must be based on careful study and thorough deliberation, drawing on the lessons learned from past operations, including that of the MSS mission, and fully take into account the legitimate views and concerns of all parties. Regrettably, the draft resolution just voted on does not comply with the above principles and spirit.

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.

President,

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 crises, along with resentment and grievances towards the United Nations among the Haitian people. The lessons learned could not have been more painful and profound. We cannot help but ask: How can we ensure that the gang suppression force will not repeat past mistakes? Is the hasty deployment of yet another multinational force a responsible approach towards the Haitian people? 

Two years ago, a certain country pledged solemnly that in order to ensure the success of the MSS, it would provide sustained funding. Today, this same country has forgotten conveniently its commitment, refusing to fulfill its financial obligations, while demanding that the border UN membership to do “burden-sharing” for its proposed new force, all the while owing a huge amount of unpaid peacekeeping assessments. We cannot help but ask: How is it possible that one can demand burden sharing from others when itself fails to fulfill its own obligations and shifts claims 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?

President,

China has enormous difficulties regarding the draft resolution. However, we did not block its adoption in light of Haiti's dire security situation and the concerns and appeals of the international community, especially those from the Secretary-General and regional countries. This represents the utmost goodwill that China could demonstrate. At the same time, we must point out that our questions and concerns remain. We are deeply worried about the operation and prospects of the GSF. We hope that the Security Council will closely monitor and strictly supervise this operation, in order to take timely and necessary actions based on the actual developments.

In closing, I wish to reiterate that ultimately, it is up to the Haitian people themselves to overcome their difficulties. Unless all political factions of Haiti show their responsibilities, genuinely advance the political process, and truly commit themselves to national stability and development, no amount of external assistance, however substantial, can resolve the fundamental problems. Haiti should swiftly identify and embark upon a path of self-reliance and development that is owned and led by itself. China stands ready to continue to work constructively with the international community in helping Haiti emerge from this crisis at an early date.

I thank you, President.