Dear Editor,

  We thank the Netherlands for the generous support, primarily provided through the Trust Fund set up with the World Bank but also the funds spent on early help and recovery projects as well as the liquidity support provided to our Government. Without these efforts, St. Maarten would today be much worse off than it is at this moment.

  The National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) while not actually containing any form of planning does provide an overview of the total damage, losses and needs arising from the Hurricane Irma disaster. We commend our Government and civil servants for staying the course when prioritizing projects on which to spend the financial support funds provided through the World Bank. The training and education program executed by the St. Maarten Training Foundation is a good example of what can be achieved through understanding and cooperation.

  Unfortunately, over the years, the relationship of trust between the Government (representatives) of the Netherlands and the Government (representatives) of St. Maarten deteriorated to such a low level that the successful and (relatively) efficient execution of similar efforts after the hurricanes Luis (1995) and Lenny (1999) could not be repeated.

  Instead, the Netherlands opted for interposing the World Bank for the disbursements and accountability of the available funds. While we acknowledge the efforts and hard work provided by the people of the World Bank, the civil servants from both St. Maarten and the Netherlands, as well as other Government officials, it cannot be denied that the direly necessary projects are bogged down in procedures and red tape.

  We would like to echo the original request made by the Governor to the formateur of our current government coalition, specially ensuring that among the many projects emphasis be given to the recovery of the tourism sector.  So far, actions of the World Bank and the Economic Recovery Plan do not show this emphasis.

  Today, more than 13 months after the storm, not one cent has been spent on real economic recovery in the form of support for the business sector recovery. From information received during several meetings and discussions with World Bank representatives it appears that developing the required regulatory infrastructure and going through the process will take at least until May-June 2019. This means that the business recovery funding will most likely not be provided to businesses affected by Irma who by that time have been (forced to decide to) closed indefinitely but to new businesses starting up.

  Even though it would, in our view, still be economic recovery it is no longer business recovery in a literal sense. Even though it is unclear to us whether such recovery is even allowed under the Trust Terms agreed upon between the Netherlands, St. Maarten and the World Bank, the business owners that were forced to close will call it “covering the well after the calf has drowned.”

St. Maarten Hospitality and Tourism Association (SHTA)

Dear Editor,

  Every day you tune in to the radio it’s nonstop press briefings 20 times a day just like a soap opera nonstop they talk. They are traveling the world to talk at the UN in New York to the shores of South America they talk and attend useless seminars, cut ribbons, hand out flowers and spending our taxpayers money to stay in luxury hotels while our island burns. Nobody whatsoever is talking about a dump that’s poisoning the population daily.

  Tourist minister stated he was staying home to solve the many issues plaguing St. Maarten but every time you open the newspaper he’s in a different country enjoying the opportunity as a tourist minister.

  Listening to a minister answer 100 questions asked by a sleepy speaking journalist is such a joke. Our island is dirty, run down, over-populated, over-polluted, there’s garbage everywhere, our beaches are full of dog droppings, restaurants on Kim Sha beach throwing their dirty kitchen waste water and oil into the ocean early morning, and the list goes on and on.

  I ask myself why do tourists come here? I’m sure after their first visit they won’t be coming back, yet they continue to talk and talk and most of them can’t speak proper English. It’s sickening to hear them speak with sentences with “mmm you know mmm and you know and you know mmmm.” I’ve counted one of them saying these words over 100 times and he used to be a school teacher! Get real! But most of them don’t speak at all!

  They seem to be non-existent, only sitting there to collect a huge salary, that’s all they are for – listening to the tourist minister talk about tourist product, what is that? Tourist product!

  The hundreds of car wrecks and the boat wrecks littering Airport Boulevard are the first thing visitors see. Get real, tourist minister, stay home and fix the issues we have here, and this is just a perfect example and there are many more hidden away from the public eye.

  From the Simpson Bay bridge towards Cole Bay a local restaurant on the roadside serving food and drink and right next to the building running dirty water, barbecue droppings, discarded chicken leg bones, ribs, etc. lie next to the reeking garbage bin swamped by flies and you ask yourself, “is this what tourists come here to see?”

  I live here, I will never eat there and many more that are squeezed into the parking lot on Kim Sha beach where sewage runs from a nearby hotel right under your feet and into the sea which is going on for years now.

  So, Mr. tourist minister, stay home and fix issues here first before focusing on a gaming board and countless useless issues that we don’t care to know about.

  As for the rest of them, stop the talk and start doing the walk. The dump issue has to be dealt with now, so stop talking about useless topics nobody cares to know about. And asking 100 questions to someone who hasn’t a clue of what he’s doing isn’t helping either.

  We are smelling the poison all the way by La Samanna hotel it’s a disgrace to all of you in charge. Tourist product? Really!

Name withheld at author’s request.

Dear Editor,

With much interest I read the article appearing in the daily newspaper under the heading “St. Eustatius deposed coalition files court case against Dutch government”. A petition was filed at the Court of first Instance to initiate main proceedings against the government of the Netherlands. The article states that the first hearing is scheduled for October 23, 2018. I can conclude there will be other court hearings. Their main focus is article 73 of the United Nations Charter, which reads: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount. … Question: Has the Dutch government acted in accordance with the law as it regards the interests of the inhabitants of St. Eustatius by removing a democratically elected government?

The article continues, … to ensure with due respect for culture and for peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their treatment, and their protection against abuses … . Were the people of St. Eustatius protected by the actions of the Dutch government?

The fact that the Dutch government out of thin air or as the Dutch saying goes (uit de duim zuigen) creates a law called “Temporary Law Task Neglect” and imposes it immediately on the island of St. Eustatius in my opinion is a blatant display of abuse of power. Will justice prevail?

The Dutch government when it comes to laws, agreements and their adherence to them pretends to be flawless. The contrary has proven to be the case. A clear example is NAf.180 million that was promised or agreed to for debt relief. Can I include the 50 million or so promised to the late Miguel Pourier who was at the time Prime Minister of the then Netherlands Antilles after he laid off hundreds of civil servants which never came?

The court is being called upon to adjudicate in this conflict between St. Eustatius and the Netherlands. The Dutch are signatories to the United Nations Charter. Article 1.2 of the Charter reads: … to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples … . Is the Dutch government complying with this law? Dutch politicians all too often reminded us that we are not equal.

The questions to ask are the following; Are the Dutch violating the United Nations charter by its actions towards St. Eustatius, and by extension the other 5 islands in the Kingdom? Is the Dutch Charter subjugated to the United Nations Charter? Must they adhere or comply with the articles of the United Nations Charter? The Dutch Charter in its present form, and I will extract Article 51 of the Kingdom Charter, freely translated is biased as it reads: If any organ in Aruba, Curaçao or St. Maarten does not or does not adequately perform its duties as required by this present charter, an international instrument, a Kingdom Act or an order in council for the Kingdom, the measures to be taken may be determined by Kingdom Act, setting forth the legal grounds and the reasons on which it is based.

What I noted in this article was that the Netherlands was not mentioned as one of the countries having to perform such duties. But this became clear when I read the following: A motion was proposed on October 10, 2018, to the Dutch Second Chamber by Mr. De Graaf in which he confirms that there is a democratic deficit or inequality between Holland and the other countries (note countries) in the Kingdom. His motion reads as follows, freely translated: considering that the Netherlands deserves or has the same rights as Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten; considering

that the Netherlands fulfilled her obligations as former colonizer (we are still colonies) of the other countries in the Kingdom in an ad hoc or careless manner; And pay keen attention to the following; to request the government to serve the interests of the citizens of the Netherlands by seeing to it that the other countries “leave our Kingdom”.

This statement brings to mind the one that was told to former Prime Minister of St. Maarten William Marlin by Prime Minister Mark Rutte who was angry and said leave our Kingdom because the former PM told him that establishing the “Integrity chamber Ordinance was not the priority of the government of St. Maarten. Minister William Marlin’s response was, “It is not your Kingdom”.

I look forward with much interest to the upcoming hearings. Will it be a matter of interpretation or the letter of the law? Will justice prevail?

George Pantophlet

To: Kajsa Ollongren, Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations; Raymond Knops, State Secretary Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations; Stef Blok, Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Kingdom of the Netherlands; Quincy Girigorie, Minister of Justice of Curaçao.

Washington, D.C., October 15, 2018

Dear Ministers,

I am writing on behalf of Human Rights Watch to share with you the findings of our most recent report on Venezuelan emigration to the Americas and the Caribbean – including to the Dutch constituent countries of Aruba and Curaçao, which form part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands – and to respectfully urge you to immediately adopt measures to ensure the protection of fundamental rights of Venezuelans in the Kingdom. Curaçao is one of the places where we have documented the worst abuses suffered by Venezuelans fleeing the devastating human rights and humanitarian crisis in their country.

The Venezuelan Exodus

Our report, “The Venezuelan Exodus: The Need for a Regional Response to an Unprecedented Migration Crisis” documents that more than 2.3 million Venezuelans have left their country since 2014, according to the United Nations.[1] Many others have left whose cases have not been registered by authorities.

Venezuelans are fleeing their country for multiple reasons. Severe shortages of medicine, medical supplies, and food make it extremely difficult for many families to have access to the most basic health care and to feed their children. A ruthless government crackdown has led to thousands of arbitrary arrests, hundreds of prosecutions of civilians by military courts, and torture and other abuses against detainees. Arbitrary arrests and other abuses by security forces, including by intelligence services, continue. As a result, a significant number of Venezuelans fleeing the country likely qualify for protection from forced return under a variety of international standards,[2] including in some cases under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Extremely high rates of violent crime and hyperinflation are also key factors in many people’s decision to leave the country.

Some South American governments, despite daunting challenges, have made considerable efforts to welcome Venezuelans, including adopting special rules to provide them legal permits to stay, in addition to the possibility of seeking asylum. These permits have provided legal status to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, helping them establish themselves abroad, work, and gain access to basic services. Yet sometimes Venezuelans have reported difficulties in getting these permits, because of prohibitive costs or requirements to present documents that they could not bring from Venezuela and are unable to obtain from abroad.

In the Caribbean, where several governments have close ties to, and are economically dependent on, the Venezuelan government, no country has officially adopted a special permit for Venezuelans to legally stay and most of the countries do not have laws to regulate the asylum-seeking process. Venezuelan immigration has had a particularly strong impact on the southern Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, and Curaçao, given their geographic proximity to Venezuela, their smaller size, and limited capacity to absorb immigrants.

Venezuelan emigration to Curaçao

In July 2017, the government of Curaçao stated publicly that it had taken over responsibility from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for registering asylum seekers and issuing asylum-seeker certificates. To the best of our knowledge, however, the Curaçao government has not issued a single asylum-seeker certificate since then, even though hundreds of Venezuelans have requested an interview to seek asylum in Curaçao.

Human Rights Watch has received credible reports from several sources who requested anonymity that government authorities in Curaçao are actively conducting immigration raids that have swept up Venezuelan asylum seekers, verbally and physically harassing Venezuelans, and detaining Venezuelans for indefinite periods in inhumane conditions and without access to legal counsel. They also report that authorities have deported some Venezuelans who attempt to seek asylum, including those whose claims may qualify for protection under Article 3 of the ECHR, and have pressured detained parents to inform the authorities of the whereabouts of their children so they can be deported together. These sources also said Venezuelan children are legally allowed to go to school in Curaçao, but they face practical barriers for enrollment and some fear going to school given that authorities have conducted raids to take children away from schools.

For example, one of the cases documented for our report is that of 19-year-old Santiago Hernández (pseudonym), who deserted from the Venezuelan Army after witnessing abuses by army personnel. On August 17, 2018, he left Venezuela by a boat, heading to Curaçao, fearing reprisals for deserting and having witnessed abuses. That night, Curaçaoan authorities arrested him in territorial waters, apparently for illegal entry. Hernández told authorities that he wanted to apply for asylum, but said that they refused to listen and detained him. In immigration detention, he said he tried to request asylum again, but that guards told him to call the Venezuelan consulate instead. He surreptitiously managed to get his hands on a cellphone and called a lawyer, who filed an asylum application on his behalf on August 21, according to documentation reviewed by Human Rights Watch. His lawyer told Human Rights Watch that Hernández was questioned for two days, and on August 27 immigration authorities asked him to sign documents in Dutch, which he did not understand. Hernández remained in immigration detention in Curaçao as of October.

Response by authorities

Instead of addressing the fundamental abuses documented by our report, Curaçaoan authorities have responded by questioning our methodology and denying our findings.

On September 5, the Minister of Justice of Curaçao, Quincy Girigorie, the principal authority responsible for immigration issues, told the media that our report was “tendentious” and based on “incomplete research,” and that we had interviewed “so-called victims” instead of speaking to authorities. He claimed undocumented people put on trial in Curaçao had access to a lawyer, although the government does not provide one, accused detainees of saying they did not have travel documents to delay their deportation, and that immigration checks are carried out on all immigrants, but there are more Venezuelans in Curaçao at the moment.[3]

As explained in the report, our findings are based on field research missions to the Colombian-Venezuelan and Brazilian-Venezuelan borders, where we interviewed government and United Nations officials and dozens of Venezuelans who had crossed the border. The report is also based on additional interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch via telephone, email, Skype, and text messaging services with Venezuelans who have recently fled their country, as well as lawyers, experts, and activists who monitor the situation of Venezuelan immigration in South

American countries and the Caribbean, including Curaçao. Moreover, for the report, we conducted a thorough review of official information published by government authorities and UNHCR.

The justice minister’s statements fail to address the key findings in our report – i.e., that Curaçaoan authorities have failed to ensure that Venezuelan asylum-seekers can request asylum, that they are not arbitrarily detained and deported, and that authorities do not carry out raids in which Venezuelans are verbally and physically harassed. On September 9, Amnesty International published a report documenting rights abuses suffered by Venezuelans in Curaçao, with conclusions similar to ours.[4]

On September 12, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Security of The Netherlands stated emphatically that Curaçao is responsible for asylum and migration issues and that the Dutch government would not take over that responsibility.[5] The media also reported that the Dutch government stated that Curaçao does follow international laws and treaties and that it “laments the perception that human rights are violated on Curaçao.”[6]

This reaction by authorities runs counter to our findings, as well as those of Amnesty International, about the reality on the island. Although Curaçao is not bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, as a constituent country of The Netherlands, Curaçao is bound by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 of the ECHR prevents refoulement in cases of torture or inhumane treatment, including some cases of lack of access to life-saving medical care.[7] Curaçao is part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, and therefore it is represented on the international stage by the Kingdom of The Netherlands. The Kingdom is thus responsible for violations of the ECHR that occur in Curaçao.[8] That includes any deportations that violate the ECHR.

Recommendations

To address abuses suffered by Venezuelans in Curaçao, it is critical for Curaçaoan and Dutch authorities – who are collectively responsible for compliance with the ECHR in Curaçao – to ensure access to asylum for Venezuelans (through registration and documentation of asylum-seekers) and refer asylum-seekers to UNHCR; prevent arbitrary or prolonged detention of asylum-seekers in cases where detention is utilized (which should only be a measure of last resort); promote alternatives to detention for asylum-seekers; and allow international organizations and nongovernmental groups access to immigration detention centers to monitor detention conditions and ensure access to protection.

In addition, given the scale and complexity of Venezuelan migration within the region, the authorities in Curaçao and elsewhere in the Dutch Caribbean – together with authorities of the Kingdom of The Netherlands – should support a collective and concerted response by governments in the region to this situation. In particular, governments in the Americas and the Caribbean should consider adopting:

A region-wide temporary protection regime that would grant all Venezuelans legal status for a fixed period of time, at least pending adjudication of their individual claims for protection; and

A regional mechanism to distribute both financial costs, and the actual hosting of Venezuelans fleeing their country, on an equitable basis.

The Kingdom of The Netherlands should ensure that treatment of Venezuelans in Curaçao, as well as the other constituent countries and municipalities of The Netherlands in the Caribbean, complies with its international obligations, including the non-refoulement provision in the ECHR. It should urgently provide Curaçao with the assistance required to meet such obligations.

Solely providing financial assistance from The Kingdom provided for detention in Curaçao, including to improve detention conditions, will not address human rights concerns regarding the legality of detention or lack of access to asylum procedures and illegal deportations of asylum-seekers and refugees. Any failure to do so can result in The Netherlands being held responsible for violating the ECHR.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information on this matter or would be interested in discussing our findings in person.

Sincerely,

José Miguel Vivanco

[1] Human Rights Watch, “The Venezuelan Exodus: The Need for a Regional Response to an Unprecedented Migration Crisis,” September 3, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/03/venezuelan-exodus/need-regional-response-unprecedented-migration-crisis.

[2] UNHCR, Guidance Note on the Outflow of Venezuelans, March 2018, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5a9ff3cc4.html (accessed October 4, 2018).

[3] Amigoe, “HRW-report: ‘Curaçaoan authorities intimidate Venezuelans’” (“HRW-rapport: ‘Curaçaose autoriteiten intimideren Venezolanen’”), September 5, 2018.

[4] “Detained and Deported: Venezuelans denied protection in Curaçao,” September 9, 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur35/8937/2018/en/ (accessed October 11, 2018).

[5] Deputy justice and security minister M.G.J Harbers in general discussion on alien and refugee policy (algemeen overleg vreemdelingen- en asielbeleid), September 12, 2018, https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2017A04498 (accessed October 11, 2018).

[6] RTL Nieuws, “Chamber shocked by critical Amnesty report about reception refugees Curaçao” (“Kamer schrikt van kritisch Amnesty-rapport over opvang vluchtelingen Curaçao”), September 10, 2018,https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/4411831/kamer-schrikt-van-kritisch-rapport-amnesty-over-curacao (accessed October 11, 2018).

[7] The non-refoulement provisions are part of customary international law and are also included in other treaties, such as the Convention Against Torture, which are applicable to Curaçao.

[8] See, e.g., ECHR, Murray v. The Netherlands, April 26, 2016, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-162614 (finding The Netherlands legally responsible for a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR in Curaçao).