NEHRO’s Preliminary Report On the Caducity of UN Resolution 2699
Title: Resolution 2699 (2023) / adopted by the Security Council at its 9430th meeting, on 2
October 2023
Other Title: Security Council resolution 2699 (2023) [on authorization to Member States to form and deploy a Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission in Haiti for an initial period of 1 year]
The New England Human Rights Organization (NEHRO) will argue that the Kenyan High Court’s decision on January 26, 2024, juxtaposed with Haiti’s reality post-February 7, 2024, should compel an impartial observer to recognize, beyond any reasonable doubt, the nullity ipso facto of UN Resolution 2699. The latter was adopted by the UN Security Council on October 2, 2023, under the premise of an “illegal”, “unconstitutional”, and “invalid” agreement, knowingly concocted by Mr. William Ruto (Kenya) and Mr. Ariel Henry (Haiti). Consequently, the Secretary-General of the United Nations will undoubtedly find Resolution 2699 null and void.
Introduction: Growing concerns surround the appropriateness and plausibility of reviewing the lawfulness of Resolution 2699, based on universal principles governing any contract. Domestic and international legal regimes outline elements of a contract, including identification, offer, acceptance, consideration, meeting of the minds, competency and capacity, and contract legality.
Admittedly, such a review marginally relates to terminating the contested transaction. However, establishing criteria to determine the temporal scope of a peacekeeping operation is necessary to specify when the « analytical grid » or legal control changes.
UN resolutions are subject to change; they have in the past and will continue to do so with each successful challenge, in favor of peace and security, according to the rule of law. As evidence suggests, UN Resolution 2699 is subject to change and must be reviewed, annulled, and amended to reflect the Kenyan court’s decision and Haiti’s post-February 7, 2024 reality.
Statement of Facts: As commonly said, every conundrum requires its intrusive deliverer, even if that deliverer worsens the situation. In Haiti’s case, with overwhelming support from the general population, both Kenyan and Haitian laws prohibit the stratagem concocted by President William Ruto of Kenya and Mr. Ariel Henry, recently dismissed and left without political cover, to illegally deploy Kenyan paramilitary officers to Haiti, supported by the US Department of State.
Following high-level trips by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in support of this arrangement, the High Court of Nairobi ruled unequivocally on January 26, 2024, that the arrangement, serving as a legal instrument with copies of exchanged letters between parties filed with the UN Secretary-General’s office to secure approval of Resolution 2699, was « illegal », « unconstitutional », and « invalid ».
Pertinent Considerations: UN Resolution 2699 authorized a Multinational Security Support Mission (MMAS), « with a lead country [not Kenya], in close cooperation and coordination with the Government of Haiti », for an initial twelve-month period from adoption [October 2, 2023], to be reviewed nine months later [July 2, 2024].
With four months elapsed since the decision, and profound and irreversible changes on the ground in Haiti, documented warnings to the Biden administration from credible institutions such as Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and NYU School of Law highlight a joint statement from US human rights clinics on the constitutional and human rights crisis in Haiti.
Noting the absence of any legitimate government, a sine qua non condition for serious discussions on force deployment, reciprocity arrangements, Kenyan appeals, or G-20 « acceleration » in Brazil, and the designation of this « government » in Resolution 2699 effectively blocking attempts by any law-abiding leader to engage their country in such discussions under current conditions.
Given that a transitional government must emerge, replacing Mr. Eric Stroymayer’s discarded proclamation as president-for-life in favor of Mr. Ariel Henry, who effectively returned to private life on February 8, 2024, to face justice in connection with President Jovenel Moise’s assassination.
Representatives of the Kenyan and Haitian governments knowingly and willfully concealed material facts regarding violations of both Haitian and Kenyan laws through submitted documents and statements in favor of the now-floating UN Resolution 2699.
Noting the failure of high-level diplomatic missions attempting to legitimize an arrangement deemed « illegal », « unconstitutional », and « invalid » by the High Court of Nairobi on January 26, 2024, and continuous attempts to pursue the same goal through the Organization of American States (OAS) and the latest G-20 amalgam, while Mr. Henry remains in limbo by Mr. Stroymayer, with a group of ex-ministers.
Acknowledging these diplomatic attempts as undue pressure on a foreign country’s independent judicial system, reasons to be elucidated by the US Congress, and not reflecting the values promoted in terms and conditions established by UN Resolution 2699’s approval.
Accounting for significant indices of corruption in the arrangement intended as the basis for Mr. Henry’s illegal request (Haiti) and the United States’ motion in support of such request.
Recognizing inseparable links between those convicted of President Jovenel Moise’s assassination and promoters of the High Court’s confirmed “illegal”, “unconstitutional”, and “invalid” financial arrangement (concocted by Mr. Ruto and Mr. Henry).
Considering Resolution 2699’s essential reliance on this now-invalid and floating arrangement: shifting from an imaginary « reciprocity » claim to public threats of circumventing both the High Court’s order and Haiti’s Constitution.
Moreover, the resurrection of the « OAS membership option” to keep the Kenyan deal alive, hindered by Mr. Léon Charles’s awkward presence in Washington, previously fired Police Chief, reappointed with overt US Department of State support as Police Chief, coincidentally on duty on the day of President Moise’s assassination.
Even after being named a suspect and interrogated by the presiding judge over President Moise’s assassination case, Mr. Charles currently enjoys full support from the Biden administration as OAS Mission Chief in Washington, DC.
Considering any recommendation in favor of Kenya joining the OAS under current conditions and circumstances would clearly incite corruption.
Conclusion: Based on the evidence, no decision from the UN Secretary-General is needed to confirm Resolution 2699’s nullity:
- Resolution 2699 is null and void due to concealed material facts by Mr. Ruto (Kenya) and Mr. Henry (Haiti), misleading the Secretary-General and compromising UN Security.
- It was approved based on bogus legal reasoning, attempting to circumvent the Haitian Constitution and Kenya’s National Police Act, deceiving the Secretary-General and the UN Security Council.
- It cannot apply to Haiti’s current situation without a legitimate Haitian Government, which Mr. Henry has failed to establish.
- The unreasonable US fixation on Kenya raises red flags, challenging US diplomats’ dissociation from catastrophic failures.
- Last-minute trips amid Moise’s assassination case and the pretense of “acceleration” raise suspicion.
- The prison-break attempt on February 13, 2024, confirms concerns over a hidden agenda.
- Resolution 2699’s mission scope presented to the Secretary-General five months ago no longer suits Haiti’s post-February 7, 2024, challenging situation.
Kenya’s distance and corruption issues make military power status unjustifiable. NEHRO urges the US to act responsibly and not to further exacerbate Haiti’s plight.