9

This event, if it occurred, is getting scant attention. From the Haitian Times:

A U.N.-Backed Police Force Carried Out A Massacre In Haiti. The Killings Have Been Almost Entirely Ignored.

The police officers were working with the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti. It was launched in October, a reboot of a previous mission that had begun in 2004, when thousands of U.N. troops were sent to Haiti following a coup d’etat, tasked in part with restoring stability and reinforcing national police capacities.

I don't have a good sense of the Haitian Times as source, hence the question: Did a UN Backed (loose affiliation or sponsored group would suffice as "UN Backed") perpetrate a massacre in Haiti?

Seems the Intercept might have been the original source, with the article dated Jan 2018, with the massacre being reported November 13, 2017.

  • 1
    The term "UN-backed" is going to be problematic. I am tempted to vote to close as Unclear because of that term. Looking at the police situation in Haiti, it is unclear whether the Haitian National Police are "UN-backed". The UN appears to be stepping in to try to bolster their weaknesses, and help them grow. That sounds like "backing" as in "You are insufficient. We will bolster you." not "backing" as in "We condone your actions." – Oddthinking Nov 20 '18 at 3:03
  • 1
    Here's the press release mentioned in the article. – Oddthinking Nov 20 '18 at 3:05
  • @oddthinking Agree that it's a nebulous term. Here I think it can mean coordinated or even financially backed. The article links talks extensively how much cooperation existed. – K Dog Nov 20 '18 at 3:22
  • 1
    I guess I am left confused about what you are skeptical about. That there was violence at all? (If so, will the UN reporting it happened suffice?) That Haitian National Police were responsible? (Would you accept the outcome of a police-run inquiry? I might be cynical, but I am not sure I would.) That the Haitian police are somehow co-ordinating with the UN? – Oddthinking Nov 20 '18 at 13:52
  • 1
    @Oddthinking That seems like less of a reason to close for unclarity and more of a call to add clarity in the answer. We have a notable source making a clear claim. – Ben Barden Nov 20 '18 at 16:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .