Dear Editor,
The Court of First Instance in Philipsburg is scheduled (on Tuesday, November 20, 2018) to hear open arguments from the dissolved insular Government of Sint Eustatius which was taken into receivership on February 7, 2018 by its Central Government – The Government of the Netherlands.
The dissolved Government officials are of the opinion that the Government of the Netherlands infringed on Statia’s “right to a full measure of self-government” as established by the United Nations and further concluded that the action of the Netherlands is in violation of international law as indicated by the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties and now seeks the Court of First Instance ruling to reverse the receivership action of the Government of the Netherlands.
To put this into perspective, with the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, on October 10, 2010, Sint Eustatius became a public entity/body of the constituent state of the Netherlands. In other words, integrated into the Netherlands as a municipality and as such properly governed under the Constitution of the Netherlands, with the Central Government of the Netherlands having the statutory authority to “exercise supervision” or to oversee the local administration of Sint Eustatius, as provided for under Article 132 of the Constitution of the Netherlands.
Based on media reports, out of concern in which the Government was being administered, the Government of the Netherlands established a committee to investigate the operation and functioning of the Government of Statia. The Committee reported back that the Government of Statia was in a state of “lawlessness and financial mismanagement, threats and insults and the pursuit of personal power.” To this end, the Government of the Netherlands, invoked Article 132 of the Constitution through an Act of Parliament (namely the Temporary Act on Neglect of Duty in Sint Eustatius) and thereby dissolved the local elected government and appointed a “Government Commission” to oversee the governing of the Island.
In defense or to support the claim that with the dissolution of the local elected Government of Sint Eustatius, Statia’s right to a full measure of self-government is infringed upon – the dissolved local elected Government of Sint Eustatius cited Article 73 of the United Nations Charter and insofar as the dissolution action of the Netherlands being in violation of international law Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is cited. In addition there is also much talk about the use of Article 2 and 103 of the United Nations Charter to further solidify the case. An abundance of caution should be exercised here and the identified Articles should be closely examined with respect to the audience, intent and jurisdiction of the articles.
First and foremost, it is highly questionable whether or not, more likely not, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter can be used to further solidify the case against the receivership action taken by the Netherlands. Clearly Article 2 establishes the United Nations as membership based on the principle of sovereign equality. In other words, the content of the Charter speaks to an agreement for adherence between members with the notion that Members are equally sovereign.
Respectfully, Sint Eustatius is not sovereign and as such not a member of the United Nations, but only a lower administrative body (municipality of the Netherlands) of a sovereign member of the United Nations – the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This is addressed in the 7th part of Article 2 which states that “nothing contained in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matter to settlement under the Charter.”
As for article 103, this Article addresses a conflict between Members, where their obligations under the Charter shall prevail. Again, Sint Eustatius is not a member of the United Nations and the conflict is of a domestic nature between the local government and its Central government, so there is nothing to prevail within the realm of the United Nations Charter.
With that said and in regard to the view that the dissolution of the local elected government, Statia is deprived of “a full measure of self-government” which is recognized in Article 73 of the United Nations Charter as paramount and encourages all its members to promote self-government in its administration of territories.
Operationally, the basis of self-government warrants that administrative governed bodies to have self-rule and control of their internal affairs, free from external government control or outside political authority. Where self-rule does not extend to the right to unilaterally do as pleases within the Constellation, but expect to be govern or follow the established rules and regulations of the Constellation.
Given the factors laid out in Article 73 to determine whether a full measure of self-government is being attained i.e., assurance the people social, political and educational advancement, just treatment and protection against abuse; take the political aspiration of the people and assist them in progressive development and; promote constructive measures of development, none of these appeared to be violated. There is no question that there is hindrance with the receivership of the local government.
Second, without prejudice to Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they have no binding force on the lawfulness of the Government of the Netherlands dissolving the local elected Government of Sint Eustatius. Specifically the Temporary Act on Neglect of Duty in Sint Eustatius that was for the dissolution of the local elected Government of Sint Eustatius. In general the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties applies to agreements between states. While the Temporary Act on Neglect of Duty in Sint Eustatius is presumably an agreement between the Government of the Netherlands and the local elected Government of Sint Eustatius it is not a treaty.
What is a treaty? A treaty is an agreement entered into by two or more states, mainly of sovereign powers. Again, these Articles do not apply to the circumstances of Sint Eustatius.
The governing principle to which the Statia peril/crisis points to a political discourse rather than a legal case. The crisis is integrated into its (Statia’s) political statutory status as a Public Entity (of the Netherlands), the creation of conditions that the polity of Statia is not prepared to live under and appeared not to have understood from the inception. All parties must take care to determine the needs and welfare of the people of the Territory of Statia and place these before politics. The suggestive crisis impasse here is through political dialogue in institutional-building and likewise comprehension.
Julio R, Romney
Political Analyst
Dear Editor,
The administrative agreement signed on November 14, in Bonaire ignited a lot and sometimes strong reactions in which words were used as 'intervention', 'higher supervision' and 'soft' indication. Invariably the comparison is drawn with St. Eustatius where one does not hesitate to say the intervention on Bonaire looks different than on St. Eustatius, and the central government commissioner is compared with the still-to-be-appointed program director on Bonaire.
One is apparently of the opinion that this is indeed an intervention. Furthermore, surprise was expressed to the fact that the administrative agreement was agreed upon just 4 months before the election (March 20, 2019) and cries like 'governing beyond the grave’ were heard.
However, there is no one who has wondered what an administrative agreement in this context means. In this context, an administrative agreement is an agreement in which intentions, appointments and procedures about mutual cooperation between the central government and subnational governments are established, in which is agreed upon how the different levels of government will (financially) contribute to the desired policy.
In 2007, the national government and the association of Dutch municipalities (VNG) consent on an administrative agreement regarding different matters that touch the authority of the Dutch mayors. In 2008, the national government entered into a covenant for the period 2008-2011 with the Dutch provinces regarding the administrative and financial relationships, investment and realization of national goals and deregulating of tasks, and transfer of financial resources.
In 2011, the national government once more agreed on an administrative agreement with VNG, the Dutch provincial authorities and the association of regional water authorities. In 2015, another administrative agreement was agreed upon with such parties, but this time regarding the introduction of the environment and planning laws. With regard to the aforementioned administrative agreements, there are also conflicts observed. In 2011, it was shown that the conflict between the national government and the municipalities about the administrative agreement can be solved by an extra guarantee of 200 million euros.
The municipal authorities had claimed also more say on the reforms of the local labour market and social employment services. The feeling that the local autonomy is affected is therefore not a strange phenomenon when closing administrative agreements. But according to information regarding the aforementioned conflict, the national government invited the association to put forward proposals and the matter was settled by mutual agreement.
Municipalities commit themselves by means of an administrative agreement to the achievement of certain targets and getting rid of backlogs. To this end, the responsibility lies primarily with the municipality and in the second place, in this regard Bonaire with the ministry of internal affairs. The national government and municipals emphatically expressed in an agreement that in good collaboration they will cope with the challenges. If in the end the municipalities, despite the above-mentioned possibilities are still lagging in tasks, the ‘ultimum remedium’ has to be applied in the form of higher supervision.
The administrative agreement between the public entity of Bonaire and the national government is exactly tailored on the same model. If it appears that backlogs by conscious opposition within a certain period are not eliminated, only then can the ‘ultimum remedium’ be applied in the form of an intervention and direct supervision.
It should also be said that an intervention à la St. Eustatius is completely out of the question. Even the way of governing the last four years on Bonaire had not given any reason to intervene. According to the escalation ladder, Bonaire still stands at phase 1, wherein the idea is still very much alive that one can come to a successful joint solution.
After years of haggling, it seems that the national government and the public entity of Bonaire cautiously surrounded themselves with the ambition to stand as one government. A government that puts the citizens at the centre of all its policies and activities. A government that no longer wishes to patronize, but gives space to the people, companies and organizations. Society benefits from a government system in which responsibilities and tasks are properly invested and goals and results are clearly formulated.
In anticipation of these new developments, I therefore already have recommended in my thesis to focus on the proper management of public affairs and to grow a culture of responsibility to conscientiously implement tasks and responsibilities of the representatives of the people and commissioners in the public administration.
It seems that a cautious beginning has been made.
Dr. Willem a. Cecilia
Bonaire
Dear Editor,
The streetlights going up on Guana Bay Road are on all day long. The
lights going down towards the beach are out all day and all night since
Irma.
Please, GEBE, come and fix them before Christmas.
Thank you and happy holidays.
Christine Bergamasco
Dear Editor,
I was called by a female person who I believe could know and told that she had read my letter to you in which I expressed my displeasure with those Members of Parliament who voted against the “Safe school plan”. She further said that there was nothing wrong with the “safe school plan,” it had to be done that way in connection with the upcoming evident toppling of the present government. And then she reminded me of that hot disputed lunch of a few months ago in which I suggested to a certain member of parliament to keep quiet, because what will he tell the people if the rumors turn out to be true.
She further told me that the position of the Justice minister is the hold-up, because it would be too blatant if a Prime Minister from the fallen government accept a ministerial position in the new to-be-formed government.
I knew and still know that a Heyliger-Williams marriage could never last. Once ago it used to be that “the schoolchildren say,” but since they start texting everything is black on white and everything goes viral.
But I am about to be vindicated because for a while now I have been advocating “out with the old and in with the young”. They did not get rid of the old. Is not it said that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks, so the old dogs are up to their old tricks again.
As long as we do not learn how to quarrel with each other and not let outsiders know what we are quarreling about, there will be no unity.
To avoid a Marlin III we have to get rid of the old and bring in the young.
The old does say, “You know what you got, but you ain’ know what you goin’ get,” but I say, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” Fool me seven times, shame on who?
I really would have liked to see what Minister Smith would have done with education, but unfortunately this is not in the cards.
I would appreciate this letter to be printed, because I am ready to accept the backlash if nothing happens, but I would feel worse if I am aware of the possibility of St. Maarten being dealt another devastating blow, did not mention anything, and it happened.
Let’s hope I am wrong.
Russell A. Simmons
The United Bus Drivers Association met with Middle Region board and the meeting was very fruitful.
Although Middle Region people hope these bus drivers are not just using their road for the sake of the Dutch Quarter sewage project.
The members of United Bus Drivers Association are saying Middle Region people can now start traveling on the buses that are now passing through Middle Region.
The United Bus Drivers Association also still keeps promising they are willing to get smaller buses to run through Middle Region and Sucker Garden.
The entire population of St. Maarten keep saying buses don’t run on the east side of the island, like there is no government for east.
There’s a call for Middle Region people to be peaceful and humble.
Let’s give the United Bus Drivers Association, transport minister, prime minister and cabinet to provide buses for the people continuously and for ever.
(I quote, “Let’s see how positive our Transport Minister will be.)
Cuthbert Bannis
