Haiti: The End of the Illusion of a Unified International Community or the Decline of the Core Group

Port-au-Prince, April 25, 2026 — There was a time when the so-called “international community” in Haiti spoke with one voice. A voice often contested, sometimes criticized, yet clearly identifiable. The Core Group remains a vivid example of that era. Today, however, that voice has fragmented.

In its place, a plurality of actors, strategies, and narratives now coexist—without necessarily converging. Is the international community still acting in a coordinated manner in Haiti, or are we witnessing a form of geopolitical “burden-sharing” among powers and institutions?

Indeed, even in the absence of any formal agreement, a functional division of interventions appears to have taken shape. Beneath the surface of coordination, a more nuanced reality emerges: that of an organized fragmentation.

An Organization Without a Conductor

On paper, everything appears structured.

The European Union finances, trains, and supports development initiatives. Alongside France and Spain, it focuses on educational, cultural, and social cooperation—an approach that also serves to project the image of a more cohesive Europe, beyond isolated national initiatives. Even when France occasionally attempts unilateral actions, the evolving European leadership in Haiti often reabsorbs these efforts into a broader collective framework.

The United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH), for its part, focuses on awareness, institutional support, and training. Its role has increasingly centered on human rights education, particularly regarding sexual violence, within the broader context of anti-gang operations. The Haitian National Police (PNH), members of the multinational security support mission (GSF/MMSS), youth, and women’s groups are among the primary beneficiaries of these continuous, short-term training programs—effectively transforming the institution into a hub for intensive capacity-building.

It is as though, in today’s Haiti, without dismissing the value of certified United Nations training programs, the urgency no longer concerns lost territories, internally displaced persons, or children out of school due to escalating gang violence. Instead, the priority appears to have shifted toward training.

Does this reflect a new form of denial regarding the country’s most pressing challenges? Or is it yet another manifestation of the “outsourced governance” model that has characterized successive UN missions throughout Haiti’s prolonged democratic transition? At worst, is this emphasis on training genuinely aligned with a strategic roadmap defined in New York?

Meanwhile, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) administers, manages, and oversees the broader framework. Acting as a technical manager, it plays a central role in financing and supervising the electoral basket fund, composed of both Haitian resources and humanitarian funds over which the Haitian state exercises limited control.

UN agencies such as OCHA and UNICEF routinely express gratitude to donor countries for their financial contributions to Haiti. Yet, these funds do not pass through the national treasury and largely remain outside domestic accountability mechanisms.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Haiti itself contributes to these funds while simultaneously bearing management fees that can reach up to 30 percent, paid to entities such as UNDP and UNOPS for administering these resources.

This raises several critical questions:

• Who ultimately controls these expenditures?
• Which countries, beyond Haiti, contribute to the electoral basket fund?
• What authority governs the disbursement and allocation of these funds?

In the name of transparency, it is essential to assess both the current state of disbursements and the actual distribution of expenditures.

Training, Funding… but Where is Accountability?

Within this framework, the role of UN agencies has expanded significantly. BINUH trains—extensively and repeatedly—through workshops, certifications, and cascading programs. UNDP manages and supervises, particularly through its oversight of electoral funding. The system is visible, structured, and seemingly efficient—yet its tangible impact on the progress of the electoral process remains difficult to assess.

At the same time, a persistent question remains: where does the organization of elections truly stand? Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé has publicly denounced a projected electoral budget of 250 million US dollars prepared by the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP). Beyond the figure itself, however, the essential issues remain unclear: what financing has been mobilized, by whom, and toward what measurable outcomes? These are questions too often relegated to the background, despite their central importance to public debate.

Security: Delegating the Core Issue

In the security domain, the distribution of roles is even more apparent.

Canada and the Organization of American States (OAS) support the Haitian National Police through training and equipment donations. Meanwhile, state procurement efforts are often overshadowed by externally provided resources, raising questions about transparency—particularly regarding pending orders and the status of armored vehicles from companies such as INKAS.

France provides structured support to the Haitian Armed Forces through military cooperation and training initiatives.

The United States, however, remains the central actor. It supports the anti-gang security force (GSF), particularly around Toussaint Louverture International Airport, while also backing security initiatives associated with figures such as Erik Prince. Washington continues to coordinate, guide, and arbitrate, effectively maintaining a decisive influence over both security and political dynamics.

The architecture appears coherent—yet its center of gravity, while never formally acknowledged, remains unmistakable.

Secondary Actors… No Longer Secondary

Other actors are also asserting their presence.

Mexico has engaged in selective alignment with the European Union, signaling a desire to diversify its diplomatic positioning. Taiwan continues to expand its presence through targeted humanitarian assistance and support to Haitian institutions. Japan occasionally contributes to the diplomatic landscape, while Brazil reinforces cultural cooperation.

The United Kingdom, consistent with its diplomatic tradition, operates discreetly. Its influence, however, is evident through figures such as Jonathan Powell and high-level engagements alongside Western partners, including appearances linked to the Élysée Palace.

The Marginalization of the Region

Amid this evolving landscape, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) appears increasingly sidelined. Once considered a key regional actor, it now seems less visible and less influential, as geopolitical dynamics overshadow geographic proximity.

At the same time, the Dominican Republic aligns closely with US policy while seeking to position itself as a regional leader. It combines diplomatic engagement—particularly in humanitarian support for anti-gang operations—with stricter migration policies. An agreement to ease tensions between the two countries was signed on April 17, 2026.

The End of a Cycle

The era of a unified international voice in Haiti appears to have ended. The Core Group, once capable of shaping major political outcomes, has lost its central role. Today, each embassy articulates its own position—nuanced, sometimes aligned, but no longer unified.

The once-perceived Canada–France–United States alignment has weakened under shifting American and European policies. This broader geopolitical fragmentation is now reflected in Haiti, marked by competing agendas and increased diplomatic competition.

More than a simple “division of spoils,” the current situation reveals a deeper transformation. Haiti has become a fragmented intervention space where influence overlaps and accountability diffuses. The Haitian state struggles to assert control or articulate a coherent strategy capable of addressing the crisis.

This is not a formal partition—it is a subtler system of distributed intervention. Each actor advances, adjusts, and operates—sometimes together, often in parallel.

And in this delicate balance, one paradox stands out: the more present the international community becomes, the less it appears to speak with a unified voice. Meanwhile, Haiti has yet to fully leverage these emerging fractures among external actors—who, historically, have shaped the country’s trajectory through unity.

Brigitte Benshow