Bukele and Ulloa in Ayiti: A Rescue Mission, a War on Gangs—or an Open-Ended Intervention?

• 

Félix Ulloa, Bukele and Ayiti: What Is the Mission—and Who Defines Its Limits?

Editorial | By Cherlie Joseph

Nayib Bukele presents military resolve. Félix Ulloa supplies the diplomatic explanation. Between the president’s promises and the vice president’s assurances, the Haitian people deserve a precise answer: what mission is El Salvador conducting in Ayiti, who authorized its full scope, and what will bring it to an end?

Rescuing missing Salvadorans, fighting armed gangs, supporting Haitian institutions and shaping a longer security partnership are distinct objectives. Each requires clear limits and public accountability. Combining them under the language of solidarity does not remove the obligation to explain them.

The central issue is power: who exercises it on Haitian territory, under whose supervision, and with what consequences for the people living there?

Ulloa’s history in Ayiti matters

Félix Ulloa is no newcomer to Haiti’s political environment. His official biography states that he served as resident director of the National Democratic Institute, or NDI, for more than ten years across Haiti, Morocco and Nicaragua. A document published by the NDI specifically identifies him as the director of its Haiti office. These are documented professional connections.

That background deserves attention because Ulloa now defends a foreign military presence in a country where he previously worked in political and democratic assistance.

His experience should equip him to understand the sensitivity of foreign involvement, the difference between government approval and public consent, and the danger of presenting external influence as an unquestionable public good.

It also creates legitimate questions. What relationships from his earlier work remain relevant today? Have any former institutional contacts contributed to the current partnership? What role, if any, does the NDI currently play in discussions concerning Haiti?

His past employment does not establish that the NDI directs the deployment. Claiming that would exceed the evidence reviewed. But treating his history as irrelevant would also leave an important part of the political picture unexplored.

Ulloa’s experience is a reason to demand more informed answers from him.

The stated mission already contains several objectives

At the Ibero-American Summit on November 5, Ulloa defended the deployment as a bilateral arrangement with Haitian authorities. He described its purposes as recovering four missing Salvadorans and assisting efforts against armed gangs. EFE reported that approximately 2,000 Salvadoran troops had been deployed, including special forces, armored vehicles and air support.

Even accepting those stated objectives, the public needs to know where one ends and another begins.

A rescue operation has a specific purpose. A broader campaign against armed organizations may involve prolonged territorial operations. Institutional assistance raises further questions about training, command and the eventual transfer of responsibilities.

If all these activities form part of the mission, both governments should explain the terms governing each one. If the mission has expanded, they should say when that happened and who approved the change.

The urgency of finding missing personnel cannot become an indefinite authorization whose boundaries are defined only after troops arrive.

An agreement must be open to scrutiny

Ulloa’s reference to a bilateral arrangement should begin the public explanation.

What does the agreement authorize? What geographical limits apply? Who can approve an expansion? Which authorities investigate alleged abuses? What jurisdiction applies to Salvadoran personnel? What obligations exist toward civilians who suffer harm?

The documents reviewed for this editorial do not establish all those terms. Both governments should make the relevant agreement and accountability arrangements publicly accessible.

A government’s assertion that a deployment is legitimate cannot substitute for allowing the population to examine its legal foundation and practical limits.

Haitian authorities bear their own responsibility here. They must explain what they accepted, what oversight they exercise, and how citizens can challenge misconduct. Sovereignty requires institutions capable of answering those questions publicly.

Bukele’s leadership must come with responsibility

Ulloa has also described Bukele as closely following developments in Haiti from a command post. That account places the Salvadoran president visibly within the political leadership of the operation.

If Bukele claims leadership when operations appear successful, he must accept scrutiny when their consequences are disputed.

Who evaluates civilian risk? Who reviews intelligence before an attack? Who records casualties? Who ensures that residents can report harm without intimidation?

A leader cannot build international prestige from an operation while leaving responsibility for its failures vague.

There is also a political incentive that deserves examination. Success abroad could strengthen Bukele’s image as a regional security leader. That is an analytical possibility, rather than proof of a concealed plan. It nevertheless makes independent assessment essential: the interests of a president’s reputation and those of affected communities are not automatically identical.

Who speaks for the Haitian population?

Ulloa has portrayed the intervention as welcomed by Haiti’s government and population. Public support, however, must be assessed with care.

Some Haitians may welcome any force that appears capable of weakening armed gangs. Others may fear military operations, distrust foreign involvement or question the Haitian authorities who approved it.

Those positions can exist within the same country, neighborhood or family.

People exhausted by criminal violence should be heard. So should people afraid of being harmed by the response. Neither group should be used to silence the other.

Criticism of a military operation is a legitimate exercise of civic judgment. Residents do not surrender that right because their neighborhood contains armed men.

Any partnership presented as support for democracy must protect the freedom to question it.

Where is the endpoint?

Reporting on Ulloa’s November 6 statements indicated that the deployment’s future would be discussed during an expected visit by Haitian Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé to El Salvador on November 16 and 17. A return date for the troops had not been defined in those statements.

That uncertainty makes the endpoint a central issue now.

What conditions would justify continued deployment? What evidence would demonstrate success? Who determines when Haitian institutions can assume the relevant responsibilities? Can the Haitian authorities end the arrangement, and through what process?

These questions should have answers before an emergency presence becomes a continuing security structure.

A responsible mission must explain how its own necessity will diminish. Otherwise, dependence can become the measure of its permanence.

Ayiti deserves an account of power

Ulloa’s former NDI role and his current position beside Bukele form a documented connection between political assistance and today’s Salvadoran leadership. They warrant investigation into relationships, decisions and influence. They do not authorize us to invent an unseen chain of command.

The strongest criticism rests on what can be demonstrated—and on the answers officials still owe.

Bukele must explain the limits of the force he has deployed. Ulloa must explain the agreement he invokes and the future he is helping negotiate. Haitian authorities must explain how they protect public control over decisions made in the country’s name.

The Haitian people deserve security that survives a military announcement, institutions that answer to them, and a future they can determine.

If the mission serves Ayiti, its mandate, command, costs, civilian safeguards and exit conditions should withstand public examination. Bukele and Ulloa should welcome that examination—and answer it.