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

~Why the Treaty of Tlatelolco matters in 2026~

Dear editor,

In February 2026, the Western Hemisphere finds itself at an inflection point. Great-power rivalry has intensified, military postures have hardened, and maritime spaces once treated as commons for trade and cooperation are increasingly viewed through a strategic lens. The Caribbean Sea – small in geography but immense in significance – sits uncomfortably close to this global turbulence.

It is precisely in this moment that the Caribbean Sea Neutrality & Peace Doctrine deserves serious public attention.

This doctrine is not a call for naïve idealism, nor an attempt to wish away geopolitics. It is a sober, legally grounded assertion that the Caribbean has both the right and the responsibility to define its own security identity – one rooted in peace, restraint, and international law. At its core stands a treaty many outside the region forget, but which Caribbean peoples should never overlook: the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

A forgotten cornerstone of Caribbean security – The Treaty of Tlatelolco, concluded in 1967, established Latin America and the Caribbean as the world's first Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. It was not imposed by external powers; it was a voluntary, principled decision by regional states who understood that nuclear weapons have no place in societies defined by proximity, vulnerability, and interdependence.

For the Caribbean, this treaty is more than a Cold War artefact. It is a living legal instrument that affirms a simple but powerful proposition: our sea is not a staging ground for nuclear risk.

In today’s climate – marked by renewed nuclear rhetoric, expanded naval deployments, and blurred lines between deterrence and provocation – Tlatelolco provides the strongest “hard law” foundation for a Caribbean peace posture. It gives regional governments both standing and legitimacy to insist that nuclear weapons, nuclear deployments, and nuclear brinkmanship remain outside Caribbean waters and ports.

Neutrality is not weakness – Critics often misunderstand neutrality as passivity. The Caribbean Sea Neutrality & Peace Doctrine argues the opposite. Neutrality, as articulated here, is an active policy choice – one grounded in sovereignty, not submission.

The doctrine aligns squarely with the Charter of the United Nations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and regional cooperation frameworks. It does not seek to ban lawful navigation or ignore international realities. Instead, it sets clear expectations: no coercive military posturing, no escalation by proxy, and no erosion of the Caribbean’s non-nuclear status.

This is especially relevant for small island territories such as St. Martin / Sint Maarten, whose prosperity depends on open sea lanes, tourism, trade, and environmental stability. Militarisation brings none of these benefits – only risk.

Why Peace matters now more than ever – The geopolitical landscape today is markedly different from even five years ago. Strategic competition in the Atlantic, the re-militarisation of global politics, and the normalisation of “gray zone” operations have increased the likelihood that small regions become collateral spaces rather than respected communities.

Against this backdrop, silence is not neutrality, it is vulnerability.

By reaffirming a Caribbean Sea peace doctrine now, regional leaders can proactively shape how external powers engage with the region. They can say, collectively and lawfully: This is a sea of commerce, culture, and cooperation – not confrontation.

A regional voice, not an isolated plea – The strength of this doctrine lies in coordination. Through regional mechanisms such as CARICOM and existing diplomatic channels, Caribbean states can harmonise port-access policies, promote transparency around military exercises, and insist on de-escalatory conduct without threatening anyone or violating international law.

Most importantly, invoking the Treaty of Tlatelolco reminds the world that the Caribbean has already chosen its security path. It chose life over annihilation, cooperation over brinkmanship, and peace over posturing – long before such choices were fashionable.

The choice before us – The Caribbean Sea has been many things throughout history: a crossroads of cultures, a site of exploitation, a theatre of conflict. In the 21st century, it must become something else entirely – a model of maritime peace in an unstable world.

The Caribbean Sea Neutrality & Peace Doctrine does not ask permission from global powers. It asserts a regional consensus grounded in law, history, and lived reality. And in January 2026, with tensions rising and margins for error shrinking, that assertion could not be timelier.

The Caribbean has already shown the world one path forward with the Treaty of Tlatelolco. It is time to walk it again – together, deliberately, and without apology.

By PJ Fameli, Beacon Hill

 WILLEMSTAD--PAR and MAN-PIN have formally requested an urgent plenary session of Curaçao’s Parliament to discuss what they describe as serious structural and legal problems at the Training Institute for Law Enforcement and Security Services ORV. The request was submitted in a letter dated 20 February 2026 to Parliament President Fergino Brownbill (MFK).

In it, the two factions invoke article 64 of the Rules of Order, Parliament, which allows for the convening of a public meeting of an urgent nature. According to the opposition parties, this is necessary to address ongoing concerns surrounding the governance, legal basis and future functioning of ORV.

They refer to a question hour held on 19 February 2026 with the Minister of Justice, during which several critical issues were raised. These included the legal foundation of ORV through its establishment decree, the status of professional secondary education and the recognition of ORV diplomas and certificates, the legal position of staff under national decrees and the Kingdom Police Act, the possibility of a transition period and risks related to the institute’s operational continuity.

Despite that session, PAR and MAN-PIN state that many concerns, uncertainties and insecurities remain unresolved. They argue that the lack of full clarity raises serious questions about governance, internal control and ministerial responsibility.

Given what they describe as the gravity of the situation and the extensive public attention surrounding ORV, the two factions believe Parliament must debate the matter. Such a gathering would allow the public to follow the discussion directly and require the minister to provide further explanations about the structural problems affecting ORV.

PAR and MAN-PIN conclude their letter by urging the chair to convene the requested public meeting as soon as possible, stressing the urgency of the matter.

Dear Editor,

I generally stay away from weighing in on Sint Maarten issues lately. There is too much going on, and most public commentary is noise. And for two decades I worked relentlessly for this island, so now that I’m more active regionally I tend to hold my tongue. To keep my peace when I am at home with my family. This one crosses a line with me though.