Dear Editor,

In recent times we have been hearing the curious notion being peddled that it is not necessary for Caribbean Community Caricom member states to have agreement or convergence on their foreign policy positions, and that – in the currently prevailing precarious geo-political condition – it is, in fact, a strength for Caricom member states to pursue separate and different foreign policy positions.

Well, I beg to differ, and I am fortified in my contrary opinion by the actual text of our Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas! The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas clearly outlines what is expected of our Caribbean Community in the arena of foreign affairs when it provides as follows:

Article 6 – Objectives of the Community

The Community shall have the following objectives:

(g) the achievement of a greater measure of economic leverage and effectiveness of Member States in dealing with third States, groups of States and entities of any description;

(h) enhanced co-ordination of Member States’ foreign and foreign economic policies.

Article 16 – The Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR)

3. COFCOR shall:

(b) establish measures to co-ordinate the foreign policies of the Member States of the Community, including proposals for joint representation, and seek to ensure, as far as practicable, the adoption of Community positions on major hemispheric and international issues;

(c) co-ordinate the positions of the Member States in inter-governmental organisations in whose activities such States participate.

So it is very clear from the foregoing that the framers of our Treaty considered that having a collective or unified Caricom position or policy in relation to foreign powers or entities was a good and desirable thing that would enhance our strength and effectiveness in dealing with said foreign powers and entities.

In fact, this is an “ancient” Caricom insight that is rooted in the seminal October 1972 decision of the four founder-members of Caricom – Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana and Barbados – to, simultaneously, establish Caricom, and to equip it with a coordinated foreign policy.

Back then, in the face of a formidable USA and Organisation of American States (OAS) policy to impose an ironclad policy of isolation on “revolutionary Cuba”, the Prime Ministers of the four founder-members of Caricom stated as follows:

“The independent English-speaking Caribbean states, exercising their sovereign right to enter into relations with any other sovereign states, and pursuing their determination to seek regional solidarity and to achieve meaningful and comprehensive cooperation among all Caribbean countries will seek the early establishment of relations with Cuba.

To this end, the independent English-speaking Caribbean states will act together on the basis of agreed principles.”

And not only did the four Caricom founder-members go on to establish diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Cuba on December 8, 1972, but because they did so, not as separate nations, but as a seamless, unified quartet, their position was imbued with the strength that was required to effectively and safely defy the USA and OAS and to establish a progressive precedent that a multitude of other nations followed in the subsequent years!

So, the question that now arises is: “Why hasn’t this well-established principle and modus operandi been followed by so many of our Caricom nations in dealing with the current vexed question of how to respond to the USA and its unreasonable and illegitimate demand to terminate our various medical cooperation programmes with Cuba?”

When the new Trump administration first advanced this outrageous demand in March 2025, there was a commonality of response from several of our heads of government. Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell of Grenada publicly asserted that capitulating to such a demand was out of the question, and, in separate statements, Prime Ministers Gonsalves, Rowley and Mottley made it clear that they resolved to stand firm in defence of their nations’ sovereign right to engage Cuban health professionals, even if it meant suffering the loss of their visas to travel to the USA.

Indeed, Prime Minister Mottley’s statement, delivered from the Barbados House of Assembly, was perhaps the most instructive of them all, and deserves to be quoted in some detail:

“Barbados does not currently have Cuban medical staff or nurses, but I would be the first to go to the line and to tell you that we could not get through the pandemic without the Cuban nurses and the Cuban doctors. I will also be the first to tell you that we paid them the same thing we paid Bajans, and that the notion that we were involved in human trafficking by engaging with the Cuban nurses was fully repudiated and rejected by us.

Now, I don’t believe that we have to shout across the seas, but I am prepared, like others in this region, that if we cannot reach a sensible agreement on this matter, then if the cost of it is the loss of my visa to the US, then so be it. But what matters to us is principles.

We don’t have to shout, but we can be resolute. And I therefore look forward to standing with my Caricom brothers to be able to ensure that we explain that what the Cubans have been able to do for us – far from approximating itself to human trafficking – has been to save lives and limbs and sight for many a Caribbean person.”

What Prime Minister Mottley was saying here was that our Caricom Member States should come together and not only deal with the matter collectively, but that our approach should be to hold firm to our principles and to reject the illicit and unreasonable US demand.

Indeed, Prime Minister Mottley went so far as to assert that even though Barbados does not currently have a Cuban Medical Cooperation programme and was therefore not facing the US demands and threats, that she would be willing to stand in unity on the issue with her fellow Caricom Prime Ministers – even if that stance resulted in her being stripped of her US visa by the US government! In other words, she was counselling a unified Caricom approach, in keeping with articles 6 and 16 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Mottley’s wise counsel does not seem to have prevailed, and we have the spectacle of individual Caricom states attempting to negotiate with the powerful US administration on their own. The predictable result has been either the outright termination or the substantial rolling back of several of the medical cooperation programmes.

In light of the clear guidance from our Treaty, and the powerful message that still emanates from the historic decision of October 1972, this is very regrettable.

All of us in the Caribbean Community well know the phrase – “United we stand, divided we fall”. It is a wise saying that originates with the ancient African griot known as Aesop, and is to be found in Aesop’s fable “The Four Oxen and the Lion” (circa 6th century BC). It is also a nugget of biblical wisdom that was conveyed to us by the Apostle Mark in the form of “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). And for those of us who are neither historians nor practising Christians, we surely know this wise saying from the 1970s popular song, “United We Stand”, by the musical group named Brotherhood of Man.

My Caricom brothers and sisters: Let us reclaim and cleave to this timeless wisdom. Whenever we in Caricom have to deal with powerful outside forces intent on having their way with us, let us make every possible effort to develop a united or unified position.

And let us bear in mind that “unity is not necessarily unanimity”. As our recently inaugurated Caricom Full Free Movement Regime has demonstrated, we can have effective unity without having every single Member State on board.

In the current circumstances that we face in Caricom, it may prove to be difficult to achieve unanimity on the thorny geo-political issues of the day, but let that not prevent us from determinedly searching for and achieving the greatest state of unity that we are capable of achieving.

And let us go forward in this current era with the clear understanding that “1 from 10 no longer leaves 0”.

DAVID COMISSIONG

Citizen of the Caribbean Community

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,

On Monday, March 16, I was driving over the Walter Nisbeth Road I drove around the roundabout next to the police station with intention to look for a place to park on the pond. I indicated to the right because I intended to make a right turn unto the one way dirt road running parallel with the parking lot on the North side of the Walter Nisbeth Road. That dirt road is a one way road which is indicated by a clearly visible placed traffic sign number 10 of the St. Maarten Traffic Ordinance. As I started to make a right turn, I encountered a row of about eight quads coming in opposite (forbidden) direction over mentioned dirt road. I expected to see one of the regular gentlemen who usually leads/accompanies those quads, but that was not the case.

In order not to block the traffic coming behind me, I had to ease my way through them. I noticed that the leader of the group had driven onto the Walter Nisbeth Road and stopped in front of the traffic coming behind me in order for the rest of the quads to drive out onto the Walter Nisbeth Road. It is the first time that I encountered that situation and that did not go well with me. I’m writing this to you because of that same letter to you of March 13. The term “free for all” comes to mind. St. Maarten qu’o va dis?

Russell A Simmons

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.