PHILIPSBURG:--- In a letter dated November, the Prime Minister of St. Maarten apprised parliament of her most recent contact with State Secretary Knops regarding the continued liquidity support in the form of a third tranche. This interaction took place on November 11TH, as per the prime minister’s letter.
“I was pleasantly surprised to receive this update, given government’s lackluster performance in keeping parliament timely informed. However, the conclusion of the letter gives away the true reason behind this letter to parliament. Although the Prime Minister had earlier publicly alluded to her meeting with the State Secretary, she had not expressed the concerns of the Dutch government publicly. These concerns the PM did however relay by letter to the parliament of St. Maarten.
The paragraph in question to parliament reads: “there has been much hesitation on the part of The Netherlands pertaining to how serious the negotiations are on our side, because of statements made on the floor of parliament about the decolonization process. However, I am assured that the progress made in the last two technical meetings has done much to ease their fears. That being said, it is important for all parties to be mindful of the aforementioned as we negotiate the best possible outcome in the interest of the people of St. Maarten.”
This admonishment was quite surprising giving government’s own role in the decolonization talks. “I had to remind the PM of her letter to parliament dated October 6, in response to MP Heyliger-Marten’s questions on the topic of decolonization.”
In that letter the PM informed parliament after an analysis of decolonization, that… “based on the above, I am of the opinion that finalizing the decolonization can and should be started as soon as possible. It will both benefit the international reputation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and therefore St. Maarten and its sister islands, and allow for the sustainable social-economic development and prosperity of the people of St. Maarten. Seeing the initiatives by MP Heyliger-Marten, I, therefore, look forward to Parliament’s follow-up and support to the Council of Ministers with this process.”
Now, to assuage the concerns of Mr. Knops and secure Dutch liquidity assistance, the PM asks that parliament restrains its “chatter” regarding decolonization. The PM did not articulate a government’s change of heart regarding pursuing decolonization, as extensively outlined in her previous 10-page letter to parliament. In fact, the Prime Minister informed parliament that the delay in responding to the MP was due to extensive research on the matter.
I had to ask the PM in response to her letter to parliament about parliament’s handling of the topic of decolonization, whether she had informed Mr. Knops of her findings, as elaborated on in her letter to parliament in response to the questions by MP Heyliger.
Given the PM’s boasting on the topic of decolonization, I want to know if she informed the State Secretary that the government of St. Maarten is in support of a Parliament motion that amongst other things endorses a foundation that took the State of the Netherlands to Court and that has petitioned the UN to lobby on St. Maarten’s behalf.
“Madam Prime Minister, in my view, it is objectionable to ask that the parliament, the country’s representative body, -now that State Secretary Knops has expressed hesitation with the liquidity assistance- practices restraint in their utterances regarding decolonization after the (coalition) majority in parliament expressed in no uncertain terms this governing coalition’s stance on decolonization.”
Did you not foresee that? Did you not discuss this with the factions supporting the government of St. Maarten?”
The latest letter from the Prime Minister makes one wonder what the government is really busy with. Was this public support for decolonization at the time, only to keep coalition members happy? Or is the letter to parliament regarding Knops’ concerns, one to put the blame at parliament’s door if the decolonization chatter gets in the way of liquidity assistance from the Netherlands?
For the record, the UD faction voted against the infamous decolonization motion. Also for the record, the UD was not in a favor of a permanent committee for decolonization as proposed, and the name of the committee was subsequently changed.
The following questions have been sent to the Prime Minister in response to her letters to parliament.
Are you aware of parliament’s motion dated November 5th, endorsing … “the initiative and legal actions of Foundation Pro Soualiga related to the decolonization of the former Netherlands Antilles, as well as the private initiative in Curacao with a comparable objective”?
Are you aware of the petition by the aforementioned foundation to the UN that requests that “the Secretary-General of the United Nations honors its commitment to the people of the (former) Netherlands Antilles and schedules hearing with the foundation along with our sister island curaçao where we can together present our case against the Government of the Netherlands and urges the General Assembly to take action in order for the islands of the ( former) Netherlands Antilles to meet the deadline set in UN Resolution 74/113 and complete their decolonization before December 31, 2020?”
Do you condone a non-government foundation representing the Country St. Maarten at a UN hearing? Has the government of St. Maarten mandated this foundation in any form or fashion?
Has, according to your knowledge, the motion of parliament dated November 5, 2020 been received by the government of the Netherlands?
Are you still as supportive of this motion as you were in the days leading up to the meeting and subsequent passing of the motion?
Have you shared your “extensive” findings regarding decolonization with the State Secretary?
What were the State Secretary’s specific concerns with parliament’s statements regarding decolonization? How did you “ease their fears”?
Can you ask the State Secretary to clarify the position of the Netherlands regarding decolonization?
How do you view the attainment of an “independent state within the Kingdom of the Netherlands” as expressed by those in favor of the decolonization of St. Maarten?
Did you explain to the State Secretary the position indirectly endorsed by the government of St. Maarten to amend the Kingdom charter and delete the articles 43, 50, 51 etc.?
What was the response of the State Secretary? Was he found amenable to these ideas?
“In closing, Madam Prime Minister, it is disturbing that you would entertain concerns by the State Secretary and put the responsibility for the decolonization chatter squarely at the door of parliament, when the government of St. Maarten has been more than a willing and participating partner in these discussions. The least that can be expected, is that the government levels with the Dutch government and bears the responsibilities for its own actions and views and re-sets its priorities based on the people’s interests.”
“I also expect you to present government’s position on our current status and government’s view regarding same going forward in clear and unambiguous terms to the people of St. Maarten. This uncoordinated, free-for-all, hot-cold approach to a topic that involves our future can not continue.”
