Dear Editor,

I would like to make reference dated back to last Thursday, February 26^th, 2026, with my headline statement made in the Daily Herald, "Achken Richardson calls for urgent three-day summit on traffic crisis." And thereafter, refer to the Daily Herald headline of Friday, March 13^th, 2026, referring to "Visitors warn St. Maarten is losing its appeal amid daily traffic chaos and over-development."

The reason for this very serious follow-up commentary is to once again seriously draw everyone's attention to this Traffic Crisis on the Island in its entirety, North and South. Whenever we constantly read about headlines and comments being made in our daily newspaper, social media outlets, radio programs etc, regarding this subject matter, we continue to read, hear, and see everyone just making their own separate comments as to the consequences of us not addressing this very serious island-wide problem, rather than us who are the professionals jointly coming together to present viable and realistic solutions. This is not a them problem, but a we and an us problem.

I was really hoping to have already received reactions and feedback as to how we would be able to swiftly come together to comprehensively present options as to how we would be able to approach and resolve this Crisis in Phases. Again, I wish to call out the Stakeholders as I mentioned in this previous Article of the Daily Herald, indicating that our Country Leaders, both North and South, take the lead in this Traffic Crisis Situation.

The question again is, Who is going to take the initiative and make this First Step, knowing that this traffic crisis is not just putting our tourist industry and economy in jeopardy, but it, more so, affects the well-being and the best way of life of our own residents.

Achken Roberto Richardson

Dear Editor,

“Who vex loss.” With those three words, delivered to a room full of Caribbean heads of government in St. Kitts and Nevis last week, Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar distilled a geopolitical moment into a Trinidadian proverb. If you are upset by my choices, that is your problem! I have made my calculation and I am moving on.

It is a phrase worth sitting with. On Saturday, twelve heads of state will gather at a golf resort in Doral, Florida, for what the White House has named the Shield of the Americas Summit. The guest list reads like a roll call of the compliant: Argentina, El Salvador, Ecuador, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Panama, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Chile’s incoming president. From the Caribbean, two leaders have been invited, Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali and Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar. The rest of CARICOM was not asked.

The summit is framed around security, counter-narcotics, and countering Chinese influence. The US Defence Secretary has invoked the Monroe Doctrine approvingly. The conference preceding the summit described the gathered nations as “offsprings of Western civilisation” facing a test of whether they would remain “Christian nations under God”. Set aside the breathtaking presumption of that framing, its erasure of indigenous peoples, its amnesia about enslavement. Focus on the guest list. Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia, the three largest Latin American economies, were not invited. This is a summit of the compliant, not a summit of the Americas.

Days earlier, all fifteen CARICOM member states gathered in Basseterre for their 50th Heads of Government Meeting. The agenda covered the concerns that define Caribbean survival, climate finance, the CSME, food security, reparatory justice, and the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy before the ICJ. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended, held bilateral meetings with Ali and Persad-Bissessar, and the Doral invitations followed directly. Two CARICOM leaders were, in effect, extracted from a regional forum and offered seats at a different table, one where the agenda, the terms, and the host were all American.

Persad-Bissessar’s opening speech had already signalled where she stood, defending Trinidad’s partnership with the Trump administration, crediting US military operations with a 42% reduction in murders, calling Maduro a “narco-dictator”, and challenging CARICOM’s record on Venezuela and Cuba. Who vex loss. Is Jamaica non-compliant, or just oil-poor?

Chairman Drew insisted the bloc was not fractured. This is legally correct and beside the point. The question is what happens to the collective voice of fifteen small states when two of the most resource-rich are offered preferential access to the hemisphere’s dominant power on terms that have nothing to do with the issues the collective has identified as existential.

Climate finance is not on the Doral agenda. The Bridgetown Initiative is not on the Doral agenda. Reparatory justice is not on the Doral agenda. The CSME is not on the Doral agenda. What is on the agenda is what Washington wants to discuss, counter-narcotics, migration, and the containment of Chinese economic influence. The conflation of American strategic priorities with Caribbean development needs is precisely the kind of asymmetry that small states must be clear-eyed about. It is precisely the reason we have built such vulnerable economies that fail to serve the majority of our people.

It is tempting to ask why our leaders would trade this agenda for Washington’s, but that question assumes the luxury of patience. For Trinidad, the agenda is written nightly in body bags. For Guyana, it is etched into the border posts creeping westward. The tragedy, and it is a profound one, is that by chasing the urgent, they abandon the leverage that might secure the future. They accept a seat at a table where their deepest anxieties are acknowledged, not knowing that the price of admission is silence on the very issues that will determine whether their grandchildren survive.

I have written previously about the Caribbean’s existential moment and the argument that no one is coming to save us. Doral tests that argument in real time. The old Cold War was dangerous for small states, but it came with courtship as both superpowers invested in winning allies. The new competition offers all the danger of great power rivalry with none of the reciprocity. The proposition is stark, align with us, accept our priorities, and expect little in return beyond the absence of punishment.

Consider the cautionary tales. María Corina Machado is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the face of Venezuelan democratic resistance for over a decade. She gave Trump her Nobel medal, she called him a visionary. Washington’s reward was to sideline her entirely, installing Maduro’s own vice president as interim leader while Trump declared Machado unfit to govern. When Washington speaks of freedom at Doral, Caribbean leaders should remember who carried that banner in Caracas and how quickly she was discarded once the oil was secured.

Or consider what unfolded on the very eve of the summit. On Thursday, Trump fired Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary. Noem had been the most visible face of his immigration agenda, she oversaw mass deportations, starred in a US $220 million ad campaign, and defended every controversial operation her president ordered. Her reward was a social media dismissal. Her consolation title? Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas, the very summit to which our leaders have been summoned. The hemisphere, it turns out, is where Washington sends its discarded loyalists. If this is how the administration treats its most faithful domestic servant, Caribbean leaders might reasonably ask what the shelf life of their own compliance will be.

None of this is to say that Guyana and Trinidad should not engage with the United States. The security and energy dimensions are real. But there is a difference between engaging a great power and being absorbed into its strategic framework. There is a difference between a negotiation and an audience. And there is a difference between a partnership, in which both parties shape the agenda, and a summons, in which one party sets the terms and the other shows up.

The Caribbean’s strength has always been collective. It was CARICOM’s unified voice that shaped the climate finance debate through the Bridgetown Initiative. Washington does not benefit from a unified CARICOM with a coherent position on climate, trade, and sovereignty. It benefits from individual states that can be engaged and pressured one at a time.

Somewhere in Basseterre during those four days, a young foreign service officer from one of the smaller Eastern Caribbean states sat in a delegation room, drafting talking points she knew would never make the news. She holds two degrees, she is paid less than a mid-level hotel manager, she could be in Toronto by next month if she chose. She stays because she believes that her country’s voice, delivered through a regional mechanism, can still shape outcomes in rooms where her island would otherwise not merit a seat. She is the person for whom the CARICOM project exists and she is the person most betrayed when the logic of the project is undermined, not by enemies, but by members who conclude that bilateral patronage offers a faster return than collective action.

Who vex loss, the Prime Minister said. But the question the rest of the Caribbean must answer is different, and harder. Who loss when we stop insisting that the region’s agenda belongs to the region? Who loss when we accept that the price of a seat at someone else’s table is silence about the things that matter most at our own? Who loss when usefulness to the US expires?!

The shield on offer in Doral protects American interests and for now Guyana’s and Trinidad’s immediate economic and security interests. The question for the rest of the Caribbean is whether we are building our own.

By Professor C. Justin Robinson Pro Vice-Chancellor and Principal, The UWI Five Islands Campus

Dear editor,

The ENNIA crisis ranks among the most significant financial scandals in the history of the Dutch Caribbean. What began in 2018 as a regulatory intervention to stabilise a major insurance company has evolved into a long-running legal and financial saga involving disputed asset valuations, multiple court cases, and a long-term government financing plan designed to protect the pensions of tens of thousands of people.

The context surrounding the case has now changed fundamentally. With the death of former majority shareholder Hushang Ansary - a central figure in many of the legal disputes - the question of responsibility has become even more complicated. While investigations and civil proceedings continue, one reality is becoming increasingly clear: a substantial portion of the financial consequences of the crisis will ultimately not be borne by those who caused it, but by society itself.

ENNIA was not an ordinary company. The insurer managed pension and insurance funds for people in Curaçao, St. Maarten, and other islands in the Dutch Caribbean. When regulators concluded in 2018 that the company was facing serious solvency and governance problems, the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten intervened to prevent a collapse that could have threatened the retirement income of thousands of policyholders.

Subsequent investigations and court proceedings focused on allegations that significant value had been extracted from the insurer through dividend payments, related-party transactions, and financial structures that weakened ENNIA’s financial position.

One of the most visible symbols of the controversy is the Mullet Bay property on St. Maarten - a vast stretch of beachfront land where a luxury resort once stood before being destroyed by Hurricane Luis in 1995. At one point, the land was internally valued at more than $400 million within financial structures connected to ENNIA. Regulators and independent valuations, however, suggest that its realistic market value may be closer to $50 million to $100 million.

Because insurance companies rely on the value of their assets to determine solvency and dividend capacity, inflated valuations can create the appearance of financial strength that does not actually exist. A court-ordered appraisal of Mullet Bay has therefore become a critical component in determining the final damages associated with the ENNIA case.

Even if the property is eventually sold or developed, Mullet Bay alone cannot repair all of the financial damage associated with the scandal. Under favourable circumstances, it could generate tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, but analysts agree this would still fall short of fully covering the disputed losses.

Officially, the stabilisation plan created by the governments of Curaçao and St. Maarten focusses on a capital shortfall of about 316 million guilders - roughly $180 million - needed to restore ENNIA’s solvency and prevent pension reductions. But when analysts also account for disputed dividend payments, possible overvaluations of assets, related-party transactions, and years of litigation, the broader economic impact of the scandal may reach around or even exceed $1 billion.

To prevent a collapse of pension payments, the governments and the central bank established a long-term financing structure funded through annual government contributions and dividends from the central bank. In nominal terms, this arrangement amounts to approximately 1.7 billion guilders - close to $1 billion - spread over several decades.

Although these payments will be distributed over a long period and could be partially offset by the recovery of assets, the core reality remains that the financial consequences of the crisis will ultimately be borne by the state. And in practical terms, the state represents the people of Curaçao and St. Maarten.

With Ansary no longer alive to personally face the legal and financial consequences of the alleged actions, obtaining full compensation becomes even more difficult. Civil claims may continue against estates, companies, and other parties involved, but the central figure whose decisions shaped the course of the case is no longer present.

This leaves an uncomfortable truth: when governance failures occur at institutions that manage the savings and pensions of thousands of people, the bill is often ultimately paid by society.

The government intervention likely prevented a far greater economic shock. Without it, many retirees might have faced drastic cuts to their pension income. But the price of that stability is a long-term public commitment that will affect multiple generations of taxpayers.

The ENNIA scandal, therefore, represents more than a story about financial mismanagement or regulatory oversight. It is also a warning about how fragile trust in financial institutions can be in small economies where pension funds and insurers play a central role.

Years after the intervention, legal proceedings continue, and the final financial reckoning of the scandal has yet to be completed. But one lesson is already clear: when the principal actors in a crisis are no longer there to be held accountable, the responsibility for repairing the damage ultimately falls on the institutions - and the citizens - who depend most on the system.

Drs. Luigi A. Faneyte, MSc., CFE, CICA, CCS

Politician/Economist/Financial Expert/Consultant/Auditor/Analyst/Researcher/Lecturer/Former Auditor of the General Audit Chamber and Parliamentary Staff Member for PAR.

Dear Editor,

Every island in the Caribbean is interested attracting events to its shores that will create positive economic impact, will be effective in drawing positive visitor attention to their destination and which is controlled domestically thereby increasing the chances of the event not departing to other shores.

The St. Maarten Heineken Regatta achieves all those goals and for it’s 2026 edition it has further excelled with a 100 boat entry and outstanding organisation and effective marketing.

Regattas in the Caribbean have changed considerably in the last decade. Regattas are more often focused on a niche yachting area. Many events are being organised by out of region organisations who are able to abandon their hosts at any time. Some regattas are held in very private circumstances outside with no local involvement The St. Maarten Heineken regatta has incredibly managed to continue the broad participation model regatta with a strong social component and broad involvement.

The St. Maarten Heineken regatta, an event under the wing of the St. Maarten Yacht club is domestically controlled, has been proven by economic impact studies to make a significant impact to our economy and has raised its status in the yachting world with high quality organisation and management.

It is fair to expect under these circumstances that those responsible for growth and development in St. Maarten to be positively disposed to this annual event when judicious advance planning is being done.

Robbie Ferron, founder Heineken Regatta