Does a different perspective truly make one a sellout or make us enemies?

Recently, a reader responding to my article “Haiti's Fake News Problem: How Myths and Misinformation Are Hindering Progress” which was a reflection on the impact of fake news, took a very critical stance against my analysis. The article addressed a video claiming "refined" diesel fuel was naturally seeping from the ground in a northeastern Haitian city.

This reader called me a "sellout," and implied that I blindly accept information from white people without research. Her comment exemplifies the unproductive exchanges that dominate our discourse, in Haiti as well as in the diaspora. We hurl accusations without taking the time to listen to each other. By actually listening, we might find we agree more than we disagree.

Another topic that frequently creates heated responses is the U.S.'s role in Haiti. While I agree the international community, especially the U.S., exerts significant - too much - influence on Haiti, we have to look at every country's foreign policy as self-interested. This may be defensive or offensive, with potentially positive or negative outcomes. However, for Haiti to best manage international influence it needs legitimate leaders driven by national interests, which should drive how it engages or not with international actors. Attributing all decisions that affect Haiti to external forces removes the agency of Haitians. We can both acknowledge the influence of external actors and recognize Haiti's potential for self-determination. After all, whether at home, at work, or out into the world, navigating complex relationships and negotiations is a reality for people, organizations, and nations alike.

As a U.S. citizen, I analyze the choices Haiti faces and their potential outcomes, while fully aware of my own bias. For example, in the article “A More Nuanced Conversation is Needed About Gun-Trafficking in Haiti” I tackle the gun trafficking issue, highlighting data showing that illicit weapons are U.S.-made. Some fellow advocates believe the U.S. is actively arming Haitian gangs. As a New Yorker, I understand the U.S. gun problem differently. Lax gun laws, especially in states like Florida, combined with bad actors (including many Haitians) create a recipe for illicit trafficking. This perspective differs from colleagues who may lack context regarding U.S. gun culture. Still, they will read the same reports as me and accept the parts that show the weapons’ origin and disregard the sections that talk about how and who is involved in gun trafficking. One thought experiment I often recommend is to imagine the following: if the U.S. inspected every container or stopped all containers going to Haiti would that stop the flow of weapons? My conclusion is such a decision would not end illicit gun trafficking.

The debate surrounding the proposed presidential council further exemplifies this issue of not listening or sometimes listening but still acting in bad faith. While well-documented evidence shows Haitian social, economic, and political actors proposed the council's creation, some continue to falsely frame it as an imposition by CARICOM.

While issues like fake news, gun control, or the Presidential Council require critical analysis, starting with flawed assumptions leads to bad conclusions and ultimately ineffective policies. The deeper issue is our unwillingness to take responsibility and do the hard work ourselves – securing our ports, borders, and maritime access. Follow the routes of drug and human trafficking, and one will find the flow of weapons.

Whether it's the belief that the international community hates Haiti or covets its resources or the claim that the U.S. supplies weapons, we spend more energy blaming external forces than on internal problems. However, we all know that focusing solely on changing other people or other nations is a futile effort.

Again, my view does not negate the role and influence of external actors in Haiti’s affairs. Instead, I acknowledge and integrate it in my analysis. This is why I advocate for introspection, which could pave the way for collective action. Yet, despite our shared love and hope for Haiti's future, I'm labeled "anti-nationalist" for suggesting that we need to be objective and look internally.

It is crucial to cultivate a culture where ideas are freely exchanged, discussions are encouraged, and disagreements are welcomed without the interactions degenerating into mortal combat.

The question to keep in mind is the following: Does a different perspective truly make one a sellout or make us enemies?