Haiti–Diplomacy: The ex-consul, acting head of post in Santiago, Stephen Cherenfant, did indeed manipulate the press and public opinion

By Jean Venel Casséus

The intellectual laziness of journalists perpetuates that of the general public. It is enough to denounce a public authority for information to circulate, repeated without cross-verification, without context, without examination of the facts. The case concerning the revocation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship (MAEC) of the former acting head of post of the Consulate General of Haiti in Santiago, Dominican Republic, Stephen Junior Cherenfant, opens a particularly illuminating analytical space to question this drift. It reveals a recurring mechanism by which republican institutions are lightly undermined and the country's image is lastingly tarnished by the circulation of unsubstantiated allegations.

The facts are undeniably clear. Mr. Cherenfant was revoked for negligence and failure to assist members of the presidential family in a foreign land. This negligence, far from a simple administrative oversight, bordered on humiliation and exposed them to a real security risk. In the field of international relations, where protocol, diligence, and the protection of officials are cardinal obligations, such a failure constitutes a serious fault. It directly engages the responsibility of the head of post, especially when performing interim duties.

Rather than assuming the institutional scope of this failure, the former head of post opted for a strategy of shifting the debate. By disseminating an alleged report on social networks, he sought to impose a political and corruption-based interpretation of his revocation. This document, relayed without precaution by several platforms and commentators, deliberately confuses different registers. It is true that the revocation of the former acting head of post occurred following a request from presidential advisor Emmanuel Vertilaire, a perfectly legitimate request given the humiliation suffered by members of his family and the serious breach of the duty of assistance incumbent upon a diplomatic head of post. However, the text attempts to graft a narrative of corruption onto this administrative decision, alleging, without the slightest probative element, that the presidential advisor's wife had ordered him to embezzle public funds from the consulate.

It is at this level that the mechanism of public opinion manipulation manifests itself. By introducing names, suggesting private interests, and invoking corruption, the narrative diverts attention from the initial fault and transforms a well-founded administrative decision into a supposed political scandal. The operation gains effectiveness by relying on a structural weakness of the information ecosystem: the scarcity of verifications, the attraction to sensationalism, and the persistent confusion between denunciation and demonstration.

From the perspective of international relations, this matter raises a broader question. The credibility of a state also lies in the coherence of its diplomatic chain and in the ability of its agents to meet the elementary standards of their function. When proven shortcomings are covered by conspiratorial narratives, the institution suffers a double blow: on the one hand by the fault itself, on the other hand by the delegitimization of the corrective decision. Ultimately, this process fuels a culture of impunity and weakens administrative authority, already severely tested in complex state contexts.