Jean-Martin Bauer

In 1994, Haiti was warned about the consequences of reducing import tariffs without protecting local farmers. The warning wasn't coming from outsiders. It was written into the Aristide government's own economic plan. As you can see, the document called for a possible transition period of up to seven years and support for Haitian agriculture before exposing farmers to greater foreign competition. Those precautions were effectively brushed aside. By 1995, rice tariffs had fallen to just 3%, without the promised protections being adequately implemented. More than 30 years later, Haiti is still living with the consequences. I bring this up because I see us making the same mistake today. People are so desperate for security that anyone questioning Bukele's deployment risks being dismissed as someone who doesn't want the gangs defeated. But what happens if we ignore those concerns? What exactly has our government agreed to? What are the long-term political, financial and security implications? What will Haiti be left with when the Salvadorans leave? In 1994, the risks were recognized, but the safeguards were not respected. We cannot afford to repeat that mistake. We need to learn to listen to one another, especially when the questions make us uncomfortable. Those who support the deployment and those who question it may disagree on the risks, but they ultimately want the same thing: a safer Haiti. Listening creates room for compromise, and compromise allows us to build policies and laws that address more than just the immediate crisis. Decisions shaped by different perspectives, proper debate, and mutual concessions are more likely to earn public trust and produce lasting results. Haiti has suffered enough from decisions made without meaningful consensus. We should be trying to get this one right together.