Can't read it? Listen now!
Jean François Thomas, Director General of Haiti’s National Agency of Protected Areas (ANAP), recently addressed public confusion over a contentious statement issued by the Association Militaire d’Haïti (AMIDH). The note calls for the expulsion of U.S. Ambassador Denis Bruce Hankins, accusing him of “gross, insulting, and provocative interference” in Haiti’s internal affairs and alleging violations of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
In a public statement, Thomas emphasized his dissociation from AMIDH’s declaration. “Since my appointment and assumption of duties, my involvement with the Association has been suspended. As such, I have not contributed to nor approved the contents of this note,” he clarified. This marked a clear departure from the AMIDH’s call for the ambassador to be declared “persona non grata” by Leslie Voltaire, President of the Presidential Transition Council (CPT).
The AMIDH’s note, circulating widely on social media, accuses Ambassador Hankins of collaborating with individuals sought by Haiti’s National Police (PNH). According to the Association, this collaboration allegedly breaches both Haitian criminal law and international diplomatic norms. However, these claims have not been independently verified, and diplomatic sources declined to comment on the accusations at the time of writing.
Thomas’s response underscores his enduring commitment to the principles of AMIDH, describing it as a “noble institution of civic, military, and patriotic values.” His statement, however, reflects a firm effort to separate himself from politically charged accusations against the U.S. diplomat.
Observers note that the controversy comes at a delicate time for Haitian diplomacy and security. With growing international attention on Haiti’s political stability and security challenges, Thomas’s distancing from AMIDH’s rhetoric suggests a broader caution among public figures wary of inflaming diplomatic tensions.
The situation also raises broader questions about the scope of diplomatic conduct, national sovereignty, and the role of foreign missions in local governance. Critics of AMIDH’s approach argue that expelling the U.S. ambassador would have significant geopolitical repercussions, straining already complex international relationships. Meanwhile, some Haitian voices see the statement as a reflection of growing frustrations over perceived international meddling in Haiti’s sovereign affairs.
While Thomas’s comments were clear in rejecting AMIDH’s message, they underscore a broader struggle within Haiti’s civic-military organizations to balance historical patriotism with pragmatic diplomacy. Whether AMIDH’s claims will lead to any formal diplomatic response remains to be seen, but for now, the ANAP Director’s firm but tactful stance illustrates the complexity of navigating Haitian politics today.
