Dear Editor,
In recent weeks, “The Daily Herald” has given space to an idea that once sounded poetic and now feels practical: the Caribbean Sea as a "Zone of Peace" and a "Sea of Tranquility". The response has been thoughtful, energetic, and forward-looking. That tells us something important. The region is ready to think bigger.
Today, Caribbean Community CARICOM – the Caribbean Community – includes 15 Member States and 5 Associate Members. Together, they represent approximately 18–20 million people, depending on classification and migration flows. The Community spans dozens of island states and mainland territories, and when we widen the Caribbean basin definition – including the Greater Antilles and circum-Caribbean coastlines – the population of the wider Caribbean exceeds 40 million people.
Collectively, CARICOM economies generate roughly US $100–120 billion in annual GDP, again depending on methodology and inclusion of energy-heavy economies such as Trinidad and Guyana. The maritime space under Caribbean jurisdiction – exclusive economic zones (EEZs) combined – covers millions of square kilometers, vastly exceeding the region’s landmass.
Individually, many Caribbean states are micro-economies. Collectively, they are a mid-sized geopolitical actor. The question is no longer whether the Caribbean can survive as small, independent states. It has proven that. The question is whether it can scale its sovereignty. That is the case for transforming CARICOM into something more integrated – call it the Republic of the Caribbean.
This is not a call to dissolve national identities. It is a call to consolidate strategic capacity. CARICOM already provides a foundation: a single market framework, coordination in foreign policy, a Caribbean Court of Justice, and functional cooperation in health, disaster response, and education. But CARICOM remains, structurally, a community – not a republic. Its decisions often require consensus. Its implementation power is limited. Its external negotiating leverage is fragmented.
In a 2026 geopolitical landscape marked by intensifying great-power rivalry, climate stress, and supply chain realignment, fragmentation carries cost.
Consider trade. The Caribbean imports the majority of its food and energy inputs. Individually, states negotiate from weakness. Collectively, a unified trade authority representing 20 million people and over $100 billion in GDP could negotiate preferential arrangements more effectively.
Consider maritime security. Individually, patrol capacity is limited. Collectively, shared maritime domain awareness across a unified jurisdiction would cover one of the most strategically significant sea lanes in the Western Hemisphere.
Consider climate resilience. The Caribbean is among the most climate-vulnerable regions on Earth. A federalised Caribbean climate authority could pool catastrophe insurance, coordinate adaptation funding, and speak with a single diplomatic voice at the annual climate change negotiations. The formal name for these negotiations is the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – commonly referred to as the United Nations Climate Change Conference. These COP meetings determine global climate finance frameworks, loss-and-damage mechanisms, adaptation funding pools, carbon market rules, and reporting standards.
Individually, Caribbean states represent small percentages of global emissions and small voting blocs. Collectively, however, the Caribbean – when aligned with the broader Small Island Developing States (SIDS) coalition – has demonstrated disproportionate moral authority in shaping global climate discourse. A more unified Caribbean political structure could formalise that leverage.
A federalised or republic-level Caribbean climate authority could: Negotiate adaptation and loss-and-damage financing as a single economic entity; Coordinate regional insurance and catastrophe bond mechanisms; Standardise renewable energy transition strategies across islands; Aggregate climate risk data into one integrated negotiating position; Present unified proposals for blue economy financing tied to marine protection.
If 15 CARICOM states negotiate separately, they are heard. If 20 million people and over $100 billion in GDP negotiate as a coherent bloc, they are harder to ignore. Climate change is not an abstract policy debate for the Caribbean – it is an existential economic variable. At the COP level, scale matters. A Republic of the Caribbean would not dilute national voices; it would amplify them.
The economic argument is equally compelling. If deeper integration increased regional GDP growth by even 1–2 percentage points annually – through harmonized regulation, labour mobility, digital integration, and coordinated investment policy – the compounded effect over a decade would be transformative. A 2% structural uplift applied across a $120 billion base yields billions in additional productive capacity. But the argument is not merely economic.
The Caribbean already shares: A common sea, Interwoven histories, Cross-border migration; Cultural interdependence, Shared vulnerability to external shocks; What it lacks is constitutional coherence at scale.
A Republic of the Caribbean could take many forms: a federal structure preserving island autonomy, a confederation with strengthened executive authority, or a staged integration beginning with unified external trade and maritime governance. The model need not replicate Europe or the United States. The Caribbean’s genius has always been adaptation.
Skeptics will say the region is too diverse. But diversity has never prevented unity in other federations. They will say sovereignty is precious. But sovereignty is not diminished by pooling authority strategically; it is strengthened.
The Treaty of Tlatelolco proved that the Caribbean and Latin America could define a regional security identity independent of external imposition. The Sea of Tranquility concept demonstrated that neutrality can be active. A Republic of the Caribbean would extend that logic: political scale without imperial ambition.
Imagine the implications: A single Caribbean passport recognised globally; Coordinated energy transition leveraging Guyana’s resources and regional renewables; A unified blue economy strategy across millions of square kilometres of ocean; Collective bargaining power in digital infrastructure and AI governance; A common maritime peace doctrine enforced diplomatically by a recognised regional authority; Instead of 15 small voices at the table, one coherent Caribbean voice.
The global system is reorganising. Regions that scale will influence. Regions that remain atomized will react.
The Caribbean has always been a crossroads of civilizations. It can now become a crossroads of cooperation – a mid-sized, neutral, climate-aware, maritime republic built not on conquest but on consent. The Republic of the Caribbean is not a dream of uniformity. It is a design for durability. The Sea of Tranquility was the beginning of a conversation. This is its next chapter. The future will not wait for small states to catch up. But united, the Caribbean would not need to.
By PJ Fameli,
Beacon Hill
Dear Editor,
Thank you, MP Wescot-Williams, for laying out the sequence of events so clearly. It helps the public better understand what truly transpired.
There was an understanding between Curaçao and Sint Maarten that the chairmanship would rotate. Simple and fair: one country takes its turn, then the other. That is how partnerships work.
We now hear there was no formal agreement and that no explicit promise was made about rotation. Very well. But this raises an obvious question: if there was disagreement with Sint Maarten’s turn, why was no objection raised at the time Sint Maarten put forward its nomination?
Not a word. Not a single objection.
If there was a concern, that was the moment to raise it. Instead, the issue surfaces an entire year later. Why the delay?
Mr. Sylvania stated on his FB.
“Mi no a papia ni a hasi ningun promesa tokante rotashon di e presidensia. No tin ningun akuerdo formal riba esaki.”
English translation:
“I did not speak nor make any promise regarding rotation of the chairmanship. There is no formal agreement on this matter.”
But leadership is not defined solely by what is written on paper. It is measured by integrity by honouring longstanding understandings and acting in good faith. A gentleman’s agreement may not be formal, but it carries weight. It sustains trust. It keeps cooperation intact.
Of course, perhaps we must now modernize the phrase. Since the Minister of Finance is a woman, maybe a “gentlewoman’s agreement” does not carry the same weight? Or perhaps agreements only matter when convenient?
The focus again, as MP Wescot-Williams rightly stated, should be on the dysfunctional SBOD of the CBCS. Who does it favour? Who benefits from the status quo? What does this ongoing dysfunction say about the future of the monetary union?
Are we witnessing routine disagreement or the early signs of something deeper? Is a “divorce” inevitable? Is this yet another signal that Curaçao wants out of the union?
While politicians in Curaçao are closing ranks for Curaçao, let us now see what our politicians in Sint Maarten will do. Will they stand united in defence of Sint Maarten’s interests or remain silent?
We also have a unique situation here at home.
Our Prime Minister, Mercelina and MP Roseburg both have ties to Curaçao. That in itself is not improper. But in moments like these, the public will naturally ask: where will their advocacy lie when Sint Maarten’s interests are at stake? Will they unequivocally defend Sint Maarten?
At this point, perhaps the most prudent course of action is to allow the courts to decide the way forward. If there is disagreement about understandings, procedures, or authority, then let it be tested where it belongs in a court of law.
This is bigger than one appointment. It concerns principles, partnership, and the future of the monetary union itself.
Alfred A. Bryan
Dear Editor,
Recently, customers of at least one local commercial bank received updated General Terms and Conditions for their accounts and online banking. The document runs over 30 pages and covers everything from fraud and cyber risk to account closures and the bank’s right to change the rules.
Most people will not read it. Many who try will struggle to understand it. And even if they disagree with parts of it, they have no real ability to negotiate the terms.
Consider this example. A customer receives notice that the bank has amended its terms. If the customer does not object within a short window, the changes are automatically accepted. But how many residents fully understand what has changed? And what realistic choice do they have if they disagree? Closing an account is not always a workable option in a small island economy.
These are not theoretical concerns. They reflect how risk can quietly shift from institutions to individuals through contract language that most people never meaningfully review.
At the same time, the Centrale Bank van Curaçao en St Maarten (CBCS) has announced stronger supervision and a push toward a more resilient and modern financial sector. That is welcome. A stable banking system is essential.
But stability should also mean that residents are not carrying disproportionate risk without clear understanding.
Banks face real pressures: international compliance rules, correspondent banking relationships, and anti-money laundering requirements. These are complex realities. Yet residents also face real exposure especially in an era of instant payments where money can move in seconds and fraud schemes are increasingly sophisticated.
If a customer believes certain terms are unfair, what is the realistic path forward? Going to court is expensive. Internal complaint processes remain within the same institution. There is no independent financial ombudsman of consumer protection agency dedicated to handling disputes between residents and banks.
That raises a broader question for policymakers. Beyond CBCS, what role should the Ministry of Finance or the ministry responsible for consumer protection play in ensuring that banking terms remain balanced and understandable? As supervision becomes more engaged and more “intrusive” on the regulatory side, should consumer safeguards not also be strengthened?
Perhaps it is time to consider establishing a dedicated consumer protection body, an independent office where residents can seek fair review when disputes arise and where contract practices can be assessed from the public’s perspective.
Financial stability is not only about capital and liquidity. It is also about trust. When people feel that the system is fair and transparent, confidence grows. When contracts feel one-sided and non-negotiable, confidence weakens.
As our financial sector modernizes, this may be the right moment to ask a simple question: are residents sufficiently protected, and if not, what steps should we take to strengthen that protection?
Respectfully,
Concerned resident
Dear Editor,
This lady came to me and asked me where she should go to get satisfaction. I smiled at her. She said to me that she serious. And then she went on to tell me that on the seventeenth of February she felt a pain in her chest and she went to the doctor.
The doctor sent her to the emergency of the Sint Maarten Medical Center. At the hospital she gave the nurse her I.D-card who in turn passed it on to the hospital administration. After having attended to her she was sent home at seven o'clock that same evening.
On her way home, she realized that she was not given back her ID-card, so she went back to the hospital. There she was told that her I.D-card could not be found and that she would have to return the next day.
On her return the next day she was told that her I.D-card could not be found and that she should go to the Census office to apply for a new one. When she asked the hospital administration for a letter of confirmation explaining the loss of her I.D-card at the hospital, she was told that "The hospital doesn't do that".
Reluctantly she went to the Census office with her passport to apply for her I.D-card. She was given an appointment for June this year. She tried to explain the situation to the employee at the Census office.
Her response was "You have a passport use that". So Because of this she finds herself obliged to walk with her passport until she is issued another I.D-card.
So my question is, should not the hospital show some kind of responsibility in this case and at least communicate with the Census office seeing that the I.D-card was misplaced in the hospital?
Russell A SIMMONS
Dear Editor,
Recently, customers of at least one local commercial bank received updated General Terms and Conditions for their accounts and online banking. The document runs over 30 pages and covers everything from fraud and cyber risk to account closures and the bank’s right to change the rules.
Most people will not read it. Many who try will struggle to understand it. And even if they disagree with parts of it, they have no real ability to negotiate the terms.
Consider this example. A customer receives notice that the bank has amended its terms. If the customer does not object within a short window, the changes are automatically accepted. But how many residents fully understand what has changed? And what realistic choice do they have if they disagree? Closing an account is not always a workable option in a small island economy.
These are not theoretical concerns. They reflect how risk can quietly shift from institutions to individuals through contract language that most people never meaningfully review.
At the same time, the Centrale Bank van Curaçao en St Maarten (CBCS) has announced stronger supervision and a push toward a more resilient and modern financial sector. That is welcome. A stable banking system is essential.
But stability should also mean that residents are not carrying disproportionate risk without clear understanding.
Banks face real pressures: international compliance rules, correspondent banking relationships, and anti-money laundering requirements. These are complex realities. Yet residents also face real exposure especially in an era of instant payments where money can move in seconds and fraud schemes are increasingly sophisticated.
If a customer believes certain terms are unfair, what is the realistic path forward? Going to court is expensive. Internal complaint processes remain within the same institution. There is no independent financial ombudsman of consumer protection agency dedicated to handling disputes between residents and banks.
That raises a broader question for policymakers. Beyond CBCS, what role should the Ministry of Finance or the ministry responsible for consumer protection play in ensuring that banking terms remain balanced and understandable? As supervision becomes more engaged and more “intrusive” on the regulatory side, should consumer safeguards not also be strengthened?
Perhaps it is time to consider establishing a dedicated consumer protection body, an independent office where residents can seek fair review when disputes arise and where contract practices can be assessed from the public’s perspective.
Financial stability is not only about capital and liquidity. It is also about trust. When people feel that the system is fair and transparent, confidence grows. When contracts feel one-sided and non-negotiable, confidence weakens.
As our financial sector modernizes, this may be the right moment to ask a simple question: are residents sufficiently protected, and if not, what steps should we take to strengthen that protection?
Respectfully,
Concerned resident
