‘Frank, difficult conversations’: State Department Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel speaks on Haiti, Gaza
Haiti, home to more than 11 million people, is seeing its worst violence and instability in decades.
After Prime Minister Ariel Henry announced his resignation, Haitian leaders are rushing to form a new government.
And the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has led to a dire humanitarian crisis there. The war has driven about 80% of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people from their homes and pushed hundreds of thousands to the brink of famine.
The World’s Carolyn Beeler spoke to State Department Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel to understand the US perspective on each situation as well as the current thinking on US foreign policy options there.
Carolyn Beeler: What are US diplomats insisting on for this transitional council to bring more stability to Haiti? What are the key ingredients?
Vedant Patel: We expect that the coalition of individuals that make up this presidential transitional council, those seven seats, that these various groups will take the next 24 to 48 hours and put a name forward of who their representative will be on this transition council. And one of their first actions of business is going to be selecting a new prime minister that can help keep continuity of governance going, pave the way for a peaceful transitional power, get us to a pathway to free and fair elections down the line, but in the near term, help oversee the deployment of this multinational security support mission.
So, the meetings where these decisions were made took place outside of Haiti with [the Caribbean community] and the US playing major roles. What is the international community doing to ensure that Haitians themselves will be able to drive this process forward?
The Haitian stakeholders were very much part of Monday’s deliberations. There were a significant number of Haitian stakeholders reflective of the diverse coalition interested in this. They had Zoomed into the meeting and were engaging directly with Caricom leaders and other international partners that had gathered.
Haiti’s gangs effectively locked the prime minister out of the country, saying he must step down, and that’s exactly what ended up happening. They’re more powerful than ever. What is the plan for dealing with these groups going forward?
That is exactly why it is so critical that this path forward be a Haitian-led process and reflect the will of the Haitian people and Haitian stakeholders. The people of Haiti need to decide their future, not gangs. And that is why it was so key. And Secretary Blinken placed [an] immense emphasis on ensuring that the makeup of this presidential transitional committee would be reflective of the will of the Haitian people.
But if the gangs right now are wielding so much control — they have most of the capital under their control — are they going to end up playing a role in the future government, either officially or in a de facto way?
The outcome statement that Caricom put out at the conclusion of this meeting in Jamaica lays out pretty clearly what expectations are when it comes to who can participate in this presidential council or not.
The journalists we’ve been talking to who live in Haiti say that the outgoing prime minister, Ariel Henry, was ineffective and very unpopular, but he had the firm backing of the US until this week. Why was the US supporting Henry for so long?
For the longest time, our position had actually been that it was important that a transitional governance arrangement be made, and steps be taken that include a continuity of governance that included something like this presidential transition committee that was announced, and it was something that we hope that would get us to a pathway to free and fair elections and the appointment of a new prime minister. And things had reached an inflection point on the ground in Haiti, but ultimately, this is a decision for Prime Minister Henry, and this is a decision for the Haitian people.
I don’t have to explain to you, of course, that when international actors come to Haiti, it has historically not ended well. They’ve in the past sparked a cholera epidemic and perpetrated sexual abuse. How can the international community address Haitian concerns that people from the outside might do more harm than good?
That is exactly why we feel so strongly that this process is a Haitian-led process. I mean, it’s important to note that when it comes to the makeup of this presidential transitional council, that this be made up of Haitian stakeholders that reflect a diverse coalition, a coalition who have put their country above all their differences and all of their personal interests. That’s what this is about.
I do want to spend a moment talking about Gaza. The US military is building a temporary pier to bring humanitarian aid to the coast of Gaza by ship. Humanitarian groups say it would, of course, be far more effective for Israel to just open up more land routes into Gaza. Why isn’t the US using its leverage to get Israel to do more on humanitarian aid?
In every conversation with our Israeli partners, we have underscored the necessity that more can and must be done as it relates to the flow of humanitarian assistance. This has been part of every conversation we have had in their Israeli partners dating back to Oct. 7, and we believe at this point that we need to approach and use every lever at our disposal. We need to do everything we can, and we’ll continue to have frank, tough, difficult conversations with partners when we think more needs to be done.
So, if the US has been pushing for increased aid since Oct. 7, as you say, or shortly thereafter, but now it is finding itself going around Israel to distribute aid via sea, is that a failure in US diplomacy?
Not at all. And I would say that it has been US diplomacy and engagement by Secretary of State Secretary Blinken that has been a key and integral piece of unlocking avenues for the delivery of humanitarian aid. And that’s something that we are going to continue to push for.
You say “unlocking avenues for humanitarian aid,” but so far, none of those have required the cooperation of Israel, I mean, save a new shipment of aid that just went into the north of Gaza. So, I’m struggling to see how that leverage has been effective when it comes to Israel providing aid or allowing for the most effective provision of aid.
You know, respectfully, I actually disagree with that. All of these avenues require cooperation with our Israeli partners, including, of course, delivery via land routes. And that’s something that we are continuing to engage and coordinating with them on. Trucks are entering, aid is flowing, certainly not at a clipped rate that is necessary, but it is happening and we’re going to continue to push around the clock and push everywhere we can to get more.
Is there a larger contradiction here in the US arming the Israeli military on one hand, while on the other hand trying to aid civilians who can’t get food or medical care because of how the war is being fought? Isn’t US policy working across purposes here?
We can have a multiplicity of goals and interests. We can have a goal, a goal that we share, that the perpetrators of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack should be held to account, and that Israel has every right to self-defense. It has a right to security, and it has a right to ensure that Gaza can no longer be a springboard for terrorism. Simultaneously, we also have [an] immense conviction that everything must be done as possible to ensure that innocent Palestinian civilians are not caught in the crossfire, that everything possible is done to minimize civilian casualties. Both of those things can be true.
This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity and length. AP contributed to this report.
Sign up for our daily newsletter