The following is excerpted from The Timeworn Constitution of Haiti: "It was never a matter of providing billions of dollars in aid [to the Haitian government], nor was it necessary to fund the presence of international guards in the region. Instead, the problem lied within the boundaries of the country itself. If the people were forced to reckon with the idea that outside forces are merely providing temporary solutions, then perhaps this would spark a period of brief introspection... In such a scenario that a person grapples with some dismal event and they have one other person to rely on, then that individual may do the best in his/her power to offer help. However, if it so appears that the unfortunate person always finds themselves in a horrible situation, then there's only so much that their companion can do. Since the companion in question understands that their solutions cannot completely absolve the unfortunate one of their problems, then they may search for enduring results. What's rather shocking is that the answer may be disaffiliation. To provide lasting results is to distance oneself from the other party. Through such a counterintuitive approach, the government of Haiti - certainly not receiving compensation through transnational networks - would be forced to contend with the shortcomings of its own nation."
As someone of Haitian descent, I've always had conflicting thoughts about the ways to resolve Haiti's condition. Since the gang violence in the country, for instance, appears to be an ever-present issue, then how might we circumvent it? Should we entirely purge the country of its murderous gangs or develop measures to protect the lives of innocent townspeople? As awful as it is to say, this suggestive question poses the least of our worries. The infrastructure of Haiti is rather self-sabotaging; it is the very establishment that is allowing the problem of gang violence to persist.
Until we direct our focus to the security of Haiti's foundational document, then things would never fall in place.
Consider this: In my AP US History course, an event which piqued my interest was that of the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention was an assembly of colonial delegates, discussing possible alterations to their governmental framework. Among other things, this formal gathering was the product of an aggressive uprising, which occurred in Massachusetts; Shays' Rebellion initiated a moment of reflection among the framers of the Constitution. They understood that the Articles of Confederation - the preexisting governmental document - was weak, since it failed to combat the issue of savagery. In consequence, they've established the U.S. Constitution, which had been operating since 1789.
In contrast, La République d'Haïti has maintained the same constitution from 1801. This, I'd argue, is the underlying problem that the country faces today. It isn't because the country is impoverished; instead, Haiti's structure of government is a breeding ground for all of its other issues, including that of poverty. This is why I say that it simply isn't enough for our government to waste a lot of money, fattening the wallets of Haitian political officials. It's best to cease from this course of action and curtail the amount of money provided, until the Haitian government fixes the problem in a deed of self-reliance.