Dear Editor,
More and more people are bringing their grievances to me, hoping that I would write something about it. I am very aware of those grievances and agree with them but I would like for more people to openly voice their opinion because, not so long ago we have read that more than 20 postponed meetings are still pending.
More proof that nothing is being done while government has been paying out XCG four to five million per month during all those months while absolutely nothing has been done and still is not being done.
This reminds of a saying with the word “brassface”.
The next point is nothing new to me because the schoolchildren have always proven to be on the right track and right now the schoolchildren are in doubt if anything will be done to put back the “Haitian vendors” where they were.
I personally am not ready to voice my opinion on that situation. What I know is that there are talks that people are of the opinion that government is gradually knowingly turning Philipsburg into ghost town. I do not know if I am ready to join anyone in going there, but my question would be: “Is there enough love for country, to keep Sint Maarten in the hands of indigenous Sint Maarteners?”
Talking about ghost town, are we aware that the first batch of tourists who arrive by cruise ships goes by bus directly to different places on the French side? And that it is until after two o'clock that we see tourists in the Front Street? Is the government of Sint Maarten aware that there is nowhere in the Front Street where delivery vehicles can stop/park to deliver goods for the businesses?
Is government aware that even the tourists who have rental cars are aware that they cannot stop nor park in the Front Street and that they find themselves obliged to leave someone in their rental car to avoid being towed away?
Simply because their rental cars have been towed away because they do not know where to find parking. They see other cars parked on the sidewalk and do the same, to return and find that their car was towed away.
My question concerning this is, if others can notice this should not those in government hear about this? Are not there department heads who should stay abreast of what is happening on Sint Maarten or are they also of the opinion that if the others can collect without working, they can do the same?
The Prime Minister self said that nothing doing and along with that, now we know that more than twenty meetings which were postponed have not been reconvened.
By the way, tourists are still driving in forbidden directions because some traffic signs in my opinion are carelessly placed as well as lacking.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
The recent court verdict ordering former Member of Parliament and Minister Mr. Theo Heyliger to pay 92.1 million guilders marks yet another painful chapter in our nation’s ongoing struggle against corruption and abuse of public trust. The judgment confirmed that the acts committed by Mr. Heyliger caused grave damage to Sint Maarten’s reputation and its economic development.
While this verdict was directed at Mr. Heyliger personally, its moral and financial implications extend far beyond him alone. His spouse, Mrs. Grisha Heyliger-Marten, currently serves as both Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT). Their marriage, solemnized in community of goods, means that both assets and liabilities are shared between them. In light of this legal reality, the weight of this court ruling inevitably bears heavily upon the Deputy Prime Minister herself.
This situation cannot be viewed merely as a private family matter. It strikes at the heart of public integrity and the principle of accountability that should guide all who hold public office. The people of Sint Maarten have endured too many blows to their confidence in government. Every scandal, every conviction, every unanswered question erodes the fragile trust between citizens and the institutions meant to serve them.
In the spirit of good governance, and with respect for the office she holds, it must be said plainly:
Mrs. Heyliger-Marten’s continued service as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of TEATT creates an unavoidable conflict of interest not only in a legal sense, but in the public perception of integrity.
A Deputy Prime Minister is not only a policymaker; she is a symbol of Sint Maarten’s moral standing, the face of our island in regional councils, international meetings, and global partnerships. When the spouse of such an official has been found liable for serious wrongdoing and financial misconduct, the optics are deeply damaging. How can Sint Maarten credibly speak of transparency, investment, and reform while this shadow looms over one of its highest offices?
To continue in these roles under such circumstances risks undermining the very principles that the office should uphold. This is not a question of guilt by association it is a matter of leadership, credibility, and moral example.
It is therefore both reasonable and necessary to call upon Mrs. Heyliger-Marten to do what is honorable and right: to resign from both functions, and most especially from the office of Deputy Prime Minister. Such a decision would not be a sign of weakness or concession to critics. On the contrary, it would demonstrate strength of character, respect for the people, and an unwavering commitment to the values of honesty and accountability in public life.
By stepping down, Mrs. Heyliger-Marten would show that no individual, regardless of position or political standing, is above the standards that good governance demands. She would affirm that the nation’s integrity comes before personal or political interest, and she would set an example that future leaders will remember with respect.
In this same spirit, it is incumbent upon the Parliament of Sint Maarten and the Council of Ministers to uphold their constitutional duty to safeguard the integrity of government. They must not remain silent or passive in the face of such a serious moral dilemma. The people deserve clarity and decisive action. The question must therefore be asked and answered publicly: Will Parliament and the Council of Ministers call upon Minister Heyliger-Marten to resign in the interest of good governance and national credibility?
Sint Maarten deserves leadership that is beyond reproach – leadership that restores dignity to government, confidence to citizens, and pride to our representation abroad.
This is a moment to put principle before politics, and country before self.
Let integrity lead the way.
Alfred A. Bryan
Dear editor,
In this Kingdom of the Low Lands marching for “No Kings” is not a realistic option. Yet there are times we do need to wonder how protective is our sovereign over his people. We know constitutionally the position of the monarch is very much hollowed out compared to earlier times but if he wants to, he can still cause his majesty’s government a bellyache. Especially, we know his granny Queen Juliana was not shy to let a stubborn government smell one from time to time.
Despite his diminished constitutional role, the monarch appears in many places in many ways in our daily lives, mostly in ways that are not a bother to anyone like on our currency (I think) or in state portraits hung in diverse places, lest we forget. His name also adorns the proclamation of new laws and royal decrees handed down to his subjects.
Anyone who has had dealings with, for example, our national tax department and in some cases other departments you may owe something, and may have received a summons from a marshal will know that those documents often come with a heading that says “In the name of the King.” The subject, of course, is about monies you supposedly (still) owe and now you are summoned to pay up within short or face serious consequences such as seizures, liens or even public auction of your properties.
Thing is, sometimes it is eventually proven that the client doesn’t owe anything at all, or the bill was already paid or partially paid, and oftentimes due to backlogs in the administration of the demanding entity itself. Then they have to apologize for wrongfully accosting you and for some persons this can be a traumatic experience. But we never get a written apology “In the name of the King” in recognition of their error.
This makes me wonder, does the king really know all that is being done in his name throughout his colonial domain? Does he know there are civil servants going about their business every day knocking on poor people’s doors with heavy stacks of paperwork in fact professing to have been sent directly by his majesty? Only to find out that untruths are being peddled in his name? What would be his reaction if he knew? What consequences would befall his royal administrators? And, most importantly, what changes would ensue?
Few weeks ago island council members in Statia received a royal decree, on royal letterhead, and signed by his majesty himself letting us know that our decision in a meeting of our council was under review for potentially being annulled because there is a suspicion the decision was in conflict with the law.
Then a few weeks later civil servants from two different royal ministries convened a virtual meeting with us council members to supposedly explain to us why the annulment process was taking place and to clarify the further process.
The main point of dispute is whether or not our sole secondary school, the Gwendolyn van Putten school, is a public school or a so-called private school (in Dutch: “bijzondere school”). This is the main point of contention, yet when we asked the ministries reps what their justification is for concluding our school is a private school, they all basically fell silent. They had no answer to give us. The one question that any sane person would expect to be asked in such a meeting about that particular subject could not be answered by the assembled experts representing the kingdom government of which his majesty the king is the head.
At that point our virtual guests decided there was nothing else to discuss and requested the meeting be ended. We are awaiting the final verdict on the extended annulment process and undoubtedly it will arrive on the royal letterhead and signed by his majesty himself. And even that may not be the end of the story. In the name of the king!!
Glenn Schmidt
Island Council member
Statia
Dear Editor,
As negotiators struggle to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as tensions escalate over Venezuela's disputed waters, and as great powers jostle for influence across the Pacific, an ancient warning echoes through the centuries. In 83 AD, before Roman legions crushed Scottish resistance at Mons Graupius, the chieftain Calgacus reportedly declared: “They create a desert and call it peace.” Whether Calgacus actually spoke these words or the Roman historian Tacitus invented them matters less than their enduring truth. They describe a pattern that has persisted from Roman Britain to modern Iraq, from colonial Africa to contemporary Afghanistan: the powerful destroying in the name of order, then declaring victory over the ruins.
Calgacus described the Roman method with brutal clarity. The empire was driven by greed no territory could satisfy. “Robbery, butchery, rapine, the liars call Empire,” he declared. And then: “They create a desert and call it peace.” Rome claimed to bring civilization – Calgacus saw exploitation. Rome promised security – he saw subjugation. Rome spoke of law and order – he saw villages burned and populations enslaved. The Romans would call their conquest pax Romana. Calgacus saw only the desert left behind. The battle was a slaughter. Rome declared victory and called it peace. Tacitus himself seemed sympathetic to the critique, perhaps because he had seen enough of empire to recognize the gap between its rhetoric and its reality.
The modern playbook
The pattern is remarkably consistent. A crisis emerges – real or manufactured. Leaders declare that “something must be done.” Military action is presented as the only serious option, with diplomatic alternatives dismissed as appeasement or weakness. The intervention will be quick, we’re assured. Technology will ensure precision. Democracy will flourish.
Consider the record: In Iraq (2003), we were promised a swift victory and grateful liberation. Twenty years later, after 4,400 American deaths, over 200,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, and $2 trillion spent, the country remains fractured and unstable. In Libya (2011), NATO's intervention to prevent a humanitarian crisis created a failed state that became a breeding ground for extremism and a hub for human trafficking. In Afghanistan (2001-2021), the longest war in American history ended with the Taliban's return to power, despite 176,000 deaths and $2.3 trillion in costs. Yet each time, the same arguments resurface. Each time, we're told this intervention will be different.
The language of deception
The machinery of intervention requires careful language. We don't bomb – we conduct “kinetic actions.” We don't kill civilians – we create “collateral damage.” We don't occupy – we “nation-build.” These euphemisms serve a purpose: they make the unpalatable acceptable, the violent sanitary. This linguistic sleight of hand extends to how we frame choices. Military action becomes synonymous with “doing something,” while diplomacy, sanctions, and international pressure are recast as “doing nothing.” This false binary – bomb or abandon – ignores the patient work of conflict resolution that, while less telegenic than missile strikes, often proves more effective.
The desert emerges
The desert doesn’t appear immediately. In the first flush of victory, with statues toppling and leaders declaring “mission accomplished,” the intervention seems justified. But deserts grow in the aftermath. They manifest as power vacuums filled by extremists more brutal than those they replaced. As infrastructure destroyed in days that takes decades to rebuild. As generations radicalized by grief – a UN study found that 71% of recruits to extremist groups in Africa cited government action, including the killing of a family member, as their primary motivation. The desert is Syria’s 13 million refugees and internally displaced persons. It’s the 37 million people displaced by America’s post-9/11 wars. It’s Yemen’s cholera epidemic amid bombardment, Somalia’s cycle of intervention and chaos, the Sahel’s expanding instability following Libya’s collapse.
When intervention might be justified
This critique shouldn’t obscure the genuine dilemmas faced by policymakers. Rwanda’s genocide in 1994, where 800,000 died as the world watched, haunts the international conscience. The siege of Sarajevo, the massacres in Darfur, the use of chemical weapons against civilians – these horrors pose real moral challenges. Military intervention isn’t always wrong. The NATO intervention in Kosovo arguably prevented ethnic cleansing. The UN intervention in Sierra Leone helped end a brutal civil war. The international coalition against ISIS prevented genocide against the Yazidis. The question isn’t whether force should never be used, but whether we’ve honestly reckoned with its limitations and consequences. Too often, military action becomes the first resort rather than the last, driven more by domestic politics and the illusion of control than by clear strategic thinking.
Breaking the cycle
What would a different approach look like? First, it would require humility about military force’s ability to reshape complex societies. Second, it would demand serious investment in diplomatic capacity – the U.S. military budget exceeds the State Department’s by a factor of 15. It would mean strengthening international institutions rather than undermining them when convenient. It would require patience – accepting that some conflicts require generation-long engagement rather than election-cycle solutions. It would demand addressing root causes: poverty, injustice, and governance failures that create conditions for conflict.
Most importantly, it would require honest accounting. When interventions fail, we must acknowledge failure rather than rebranding it as success. When we create refugees, we must accept responsibility rather than treating the crisis as someone else’s problem. When our actions radicalize populations, we must recognize our role rather than expressing surprise at the “inexplicable” hatred directed toward us.
The eternal choice
Calgacus lost his battle against Rome. His warning, preserved ironically by his conquerors, outlasted their empire. Today, as new crises emerge and familiar voices call for military solutions, his words pose an uncomfortable question: Will we keep creating deserts and calling them peace? The pattern isn’t inevitable. We choose it, crisis by crisis, intervention by intervention. We choose it when we accept false urgency over patient diplomacy, when we mistake destruction for resolution, when we prioritize the politically expedient over the morally necessary.
Two millennia after Mons Graupius, the fundamental challenge remains unchanged: Can we resist the seductive simplicity of force and embrace the complex work of genuine peace? Or will future historians, surveying the deserts we leave behind, wonder why we never learned? The powerful have always dressed up conquest as liberation, violence as order, domination as peace. The genius of the formulation is that it names both the act and the lie. Not just that Rome creates a desert, but that it calls it peace.
The answer lies not in ancient Scotland but in the choices we make today, tomorrow, and in every crisis to come. Each time we’re told that bombs will bring peace, we face Calgacus’ question anew. Each time, we can choose differently. An updated version of Calgacus’ words might be, “they create deserts with members-only oases and call it development.”
Professor C. Justin Robinson
Pro Vice-Chancellor and Principal, The UWI Five Islands Campus
Dear Editor,
I am calling on all nations in the Caribbean, especially the Caricom nations, to be wise, never let down America, Great Britain, France and Holland military presence in the Caribbean.
Caribbean people, please read my lips: let Donald Trump liberate Venezuela and its people, majority of Venezuelans depends on Trump to liberate Venezuela.
Millions of people around the world supported and supporting Donald Trump to do the best for the Venezuelan people.
The entire world nations should never accept a political party or a leader that want to remain in power forever.
Such as all those nations that so believe in Russia, China and dirty Iran are not helping to fix the world.
My great excellent God keep blessing America, Great Britain, Holland and France thanks to giving us a world police to go after those dictators in the world.
I had a dream for all those African nations that disrespecting Great Britain, France, Holland, Spain, America, Israel and especially those European colonise powers that will not be good for African.
Cuthbert Bannis
