In a revelation that demands a broader reassessment of international presence and its implications in Haiti, the U.S. Ambassador recently admitted that the embassy has had to maintain direct communication with gang members in Port-au-Prince. According to the ambassador, this outreach is done to clarify potential gang targets in order to safeguard the embassy and its personnel. This admission raises critical questions about the role of foreign embassies in a nation plagued by organized violence and societal breakdown.

This practice suggests that the safety of the U.S. embassy hinges not solely on diplomacy with recognized government entities but also on establishing a line of communication with those wielding de facto power in the streets. Such a strategy, while perhaps practical from a crisis management standpoint, draws an uncomfortable picture of the realities on the ground in Port-au-Prince, where the state apparatus has seemingly ceded control to armed groups.

A Troubling Admission

When an ambassador acknowledges routine consultations with criminal actors, it reflects more than just diplomatic foresight—it hints at a shadowy collaboration with those who hold sway over civilian life. The implications are dire. If international diplomats are aware of the gangs’ targets and coordinate accordingly, does that mean some lives are deemed more expendable than others? What message does it send to the local population struggling with daily violence, displacement, and instability?

The ambassador’s statement implicitly acknowledges the perception of a tacit understanding with these groups. While the embassy might seek to secure its perimeter, the underlying question lingers: Whose safety is prioritized, and at what cost?

Why the Multinational Force Is Failing

The recent setbacks facing the multinational force attempting to bring stability to Haiti make more sense within this context. For years, policy prescriptions from abroad have emphasized large-scale interventions—financial aid, humanitarian missions, and military presence. But none of these strategies have fully accounted for the on-the-ground realities, where criminal networks exert significant influence and can thwart or redirect international efforts at will.

Engaging diplomatically with gang members might seem pragmatic to protect the embassy, but it is emblematic of a deeper issue: a lack of a comprehensive, cohesive strategy. If international forces and Haitian authorities continue to operate in isolation from the street-level dynamics and under-the-table negotiations, failure becomes inevitable. Moreover, the strategic ambiguity in gang targeting means the violence is not just chaotic but often highly directed. The ambiguity allows gang leaders to shape the political and social narrative by selectively applying pressure or violence, and international actors—unwittingly or otherwise—play a role in maintaining this status quo.

The Human Cost of Targeted Violence

The embassy’s engagement strategy inadvertently underscores the plight of ordinary Haitians. The ambassador’s remarks revealed that the gangs identify and pursue specific targets, which might not necessarily include foreign personnel, but certainly includes locals. This selective targeting intensifies the terror experienced by those left vulnerable, particularly civilians who often find themselves at the mercy of these gangs. As more people flee their homes, leaving behind everything they have worked for, the situation morphs from a mere law-and-order problem into a humanitarian crisis of mass displacement.

The international community’s strategic ambiguity toward gangs in Haiti has also done little to inspire confidence. Rather than dismantling the power of these armed groups, it appears the measures have only legitimized their presence as political stakeholders. The human toll is profound, with communities living in constant fear, unsure of when the next attack or displacement will occur.

A Call for Accountability

The ambassador’s admission highlights a larger, long-standing issue: that the diplomatic community has not only witnessed but, in some cases, engaged in practices that allow these armed groups to entrench their positions of power. This raises hard questions for the U.S. and other nations: How can they reconcile their mission to promote peace and stability with the realities of dealing with violent non-state actors? What responsibility do they bear when they engage with entities that undermine the rule of law and civilian safety?

It is crucial for the U.S. and other international actors in Haiti to reexamine their approach. A strategy that relies on tactical arrangements with gang members can only provide short-term security at best, and in the worst-case scenario, it tacitly acknowledges their dominion. Moving forward, more transparent efforts that address the root causes of gang violence, empower local institutions, and support community-led initiatives should be prioritized over behind-the-scenes arrangements with violent actors.

Until then, the ambassador’s statement is a stark reminder of the grim realities faced in Port-au-Prince—realities that won’t change until there is a shift in strategy, both from the international community and from within Haiti itself.