Dear Editor,

Recent revelations in the press concerning vessels flying the Sint Maarten flag with falsified documentation have attracted the attention of Dutch Members of Parliament and have elicited grave concerns across the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It is reported that a minimum of 77 vessels have obtained counterfeit registration certificates in the name of Sint Maarten, including ships subject to international sanctions.

As a graduate in Port Management and Maritime Affairs from the World Maritime University in Malmö, Sweden, I consider it essential to address this matter not only as a legal and political priority but also from the perspective of international maritime law and globally recognized best practices.

Fake flagging risks

The illicit utilization of a flag, especially one associated with a constituent nation of a sovereign Kingdom, presents significant risks. These encompass potential infringements of United Nations Security Council sanctions as well as more extensive maritime criminal activities, including money-laundering, illegal fishing, and smuggling.

The damage inflicted upon Sint Maarten is both reputational and economic in nature. Our maritime identity is now associated, in international circles, with issues of non-compliance and potential complicity. This association undermines the credibility of Sint Maarten’s maritime institution, which may subsequently lose legitimacy and invite further instances of non-compliance. For the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which bears international responsibilities under UNCLOS and IMO conventions, the issue of fictitious flagging compromises flag-state control and could result in diplomatic or legal consequences. Such implications further tarnish the reputation of the kingdom’s flag state and may lead to sanctions from entities such as the IMO or port-state control regimes.

An additional complication arises from the fact that the Kingdom Act formally consolidates authority over vessel registration within the Netherlands. As a result, Sint Maarten is devoid of the legal capacity to operate an independent, internationally recognized maritime registry. Consequently, all vessels seeking recognition under Kingdom jurisdiction must be registered through systems administered by the Netherlands.

This prevents Sint Maarten from issuing internationally recognized ship registration certificates, establishing a national flag registry with IMO-recognized authority, and exercising direct flag-state control over seagoing vessels.

Own maritime registry authority

The issue also underscores a longstanding structural deficiency. Despite our maritime heritage, Sint Maarten lacks an internationally recognized authority to register seagoing vessels, primarily owing to restrictions imposed by the Kingdom Charter and existing Dutch legislation. Nonetheless, should Sint Maarten establish a properly regulated ship registry, the benefits for the island would be substantial. As demonstrated by Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, even landlocked Mongolia, and San Marino, revenue generated from vessel registration can be considerable. Sint Maarten could enforce standards set by the IMO and ILO, thereby enhancing safety, labor conditions, and environmental compliance – not only for its vessels but also contributing to the disruption of illicit registry activities. A credible registry would bolster local governance, augment legal capacity, and elevate credibility across the Kingdom. Furthermore, it would attract maritime services, crewing agencies, certification organizations, and insurers, thereby fostering the growth of a Blue Economy hub.

Nonetheless, examples from across the globe demonstrate how small nations and territories have effectively established credible and autonomous registries.

* Norway’s International Ship Register (NIS) has enabled the nation to maintain its competitiveness on the global stage while upholding rigorous standards.

* Hong Kong, now one of the world’s largest registries, established its autonomous system while still under British sovereignty in the 1990s.

* Tuvalu and San Marino, despite their limited size, manage registries via strategic alliances and have swiftly adapted to international standards.

These cases demonstrate that a small country or territory can establish a reputable and profitable registry, provided that international standards are adhered to and adequate oversight is maintained.

Legal path forward

To address the current issue and prevent future misconduct, Sint Maarten should undertake the necessary legal groundwork to establish an internationally recognized Maritime Authority, which will be responsible for registering vessels and enforcing flag-state obligations.

This would involve two parallel legal tracks:

* Kingdom-Level Reform – The amendment to the Kingdom Act on Ship Registration (Staatsregeling or other constitutional frameworks), effective from July 1, 2025, establishes a centralized legal framework for the registration of seagoing vessels within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

While the Act simplifies the process of ship registration and delineates vessel nationality under a unified jurisdiction, it also entails significant legal and economic constraints for Sint Maarten, a constituent country within the Kingdom. This necessitates cooperation from the Kingdom Council of Ministers and legislative approval in accordance with the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Articles 38 and 43).

Or – Formulate a Memorandum of Understanding between the Netherlands and Sint Maarten to delegate registry powers, outlining oversight, dispute resolution, international representation, and ensuring adherence to international law. Furthermore, secure Sint Maarten’s separate accession or participation in UNCLOS 1982, IMO conventions, and the 1986 Conditions for Registration of Ships, establishing a “genuine link.”

* Local legal infrastructure – Establish a Maritime Authority of Sint Maarten by national ordinance in accordance with the national reform at the kingdom level. – Enact a Ship Registration Act aligned with SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, and the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC 2006). – Develop institutional capacity to issue ship certificates, perform inspections, and de-register non-compliant vessels.

Such reforms would necessitate foresight and collaboration with maritime experts; however, they are completely achievable and significantly overdue.

Cost of inaction

In the absence of definitive measures to resolve this issue, Sint Maarten risks being blacklisted within international maritime communities. If the nation is perceived as a refuge for convenience flagging or vessels evading international oversight, there is a potential threat of losing legitimate maritime commerce and becoming subject to sanctions or inspections.

More importantly, we overlook a significant opportunity to cultivate a strategic maritime sector that has the potential to generate revenue, create employment opportunities, and enhance Sint Maarten’s visibility within the Caribbean region and internationally.

Scandal to strategy

The recent exposure of fraudulent ship registration serves as a wake-up call and highlights the ease with which reputations can be compromised. Instead of responding defensively, Sint Maarten ought to utilize this opportunity to reaffirm its stance as a reputable maritime entity within the Kingdom and on the global stage.

While the Kingdom Act on Ship Registration safeguards the unity and reputation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in maritime affairs, it concurrently impedes Sint Maarten’s ambitions for maritime autonomy and economic advancement within the sector. In the absence of legal acknowledgment or authority to register vessels, Sint Maarten remains susceptible to the misuse of its national symbols and is deprived of legitimate maritime economic opportunities.

To safeguard its identity and unlock potential in the blue economy, Sint Maarten must advocate for a measured legal pathway to establish a recognized registry, supported by legislative reforms across the Kingdom and robust local governance.

With the appropriate legal framework, strategic partnerships, and a steadfast commitment to international compliance, Sint Maarten is positioned to establish a reputable and sustainable ship registry. The moment has arrived to transition from scandal to strategic development, doing so with ambition, professionalism, and determination.

Romain Laville

Port Management, Maritime Affairs Graduate

World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

Dear Editor,

I am writing to bring urgent attention to a serious accessibility issue affecting disabled passengers traveling on WINAIR flights throughout our Dutch Kingdom territories.

Last week, while traveling from Saba to St. Maarten on a WINAIR flight, I witnessed a disturbing scene that highlights the inadequate provisions for wheelchair-bound passengers. Two elderly ladies, who required wheelchairs, were among the passengers, both traveling for medical reasons. The boarding process was nothing short of distressing.

Both women struggled desperately to enter the aircraft, with one unable to board without a fellow passenger physically lifting her into the plane. While I commend the Good Samaritan who assisted, this situation was potentially dangerous and certainly undignified. The passenger could have been injured, and the elderly woman was subjected to an unsafe and humiliating experience.

Upon arrival in St. Maarten, Accessible Ventures staff did their best to assist with deplaning, but the challenges persisted. On the return evening flight, the same passenger faced identical difficulties boarding, and even encountered problems accessing the bus at the airport – another indication that our transportation infrastructure fails our disabled community.

This is not a new problem. Twelve years ago, I experienced similar difficulties when an injury left me unable to walk. I had to be transported into a WINAIR aircraft using a blanket – a makeshift solution that was neither safe nor dignified. The fact that disabled passengers still face these same challenges over a decade later is unacceptable.

Our airports in Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Sint Maarten must urgently address this accessibility gap. Proper loading equipment – whether specialized ramps, lifts, or other assistive devices – should be standard at every airport serving disabled passengers. This responsibility likely falls jointly on WINAIR, the respective airport authorities, and perhaps the broader transportation oversight bodies in our Dutch Kingdom.

Air travel is a necessity, not a luxury, particularly for residents of our smaller islands who must travel for medical care. Every passenger, regardless of physical ability, deserves safe, dignified access to public transportation. The current situation violates basic principles of accessibility and potentially puts vulnerable passengers at risk.

I call upon WINAIR, our airport authorities, and relevant government officials to immediately investigate and implement proper accessibility solutions. Disabled passengers should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers or endure unsafe boarding procedures.

This issue affects our most vulnerable citizens and has persisted far too long. The time for action is now.

Concerned citizen

Name withheld at author’s request.

Dear Editor,

Apparently, it seems as though humans possess a psychological need and are biologically hard wired to endure and inflict pain on both members of its own species and other members of the animal kingdom. And so this acute awareness of our seemingly inherent capacity to initiate, administer and absorb suffering may have led the stoic, Marcus Aurelius, to conclude centuries ago that “Nothing happens to any man that he is not formed by nature to bear.” Marcus, having witnessed some of mankind’s most savage and barbaric atrocities, knew a millennium ago what we as a species were capable of as donors and recipients of inhumane pain. Marcus understood that to inflict, experience and endure pain is at the core of what essentially makes us humans.

Nature ostensibly has equipped or rather endowed us with capacities to commit unimaginable cruelties against our fellow man and other life forms. This internal capacity to unleash suffering and destruction on other living organisms including our own may very well account for the manner in which the much prophesied apocalyptic end of times is likely to occur – the end of life on earth as we know it may be of our own machinations, it’s oncoming however painful. As a species humans display unredeemable tendencies to hurt and maim others continuously, oftentimes with an air of indifference while remaining completely oblivious to the recipient’s obvious unbearable absorption of their pain. Instances of this horrifying but supposedly natural inclination of man abound throughout the short history of our species, with war, global conflicts and genocides being some of the most glaring examples.

Man it seems has long concluded that he is predisposed to ghoulishly decapitate and slaughter the anatomies of his fellow man; and whenever he is not engaged in his acts of anatomical annihilation he is nonetheless occupied with executing the techniques of psychological warfare consciously destabilizing and deranging the minds of his fellow man ruining their lives in the process populating numerous asylums. It appears that Man’s capacity for tormenting is a constant of his Character. Arthur Schopenhauer would have captured this characteristic trait of man poignantly when he stated, “No animal ever torments another for the mere purpose of tormenting but man does it and it is this that constitutes the diabolical feature in his character which is so much worse than the mere animal.” Schopenhauer, oftentimes during his mortal lifespan was dismissed as an eternal pessimist but he was nevertheless on point regarding the validity and accuracy of the foregoing observation.

The intentional and conscious administering of pain or the threat of its employment has been and continues to be used as a tool for extracting compliant behavior and in countless other cases to deter undesirable human conduct. The lingering awareness that pain can be readily brought to bear on deviant human behavior assures its donors of its effectiveness in ensuring favorable outcomes from its potential recipients. The fear which perennially accompanies the possibility of being subjected to punishment for societal infractions is daunting. It requires copious amounts of intestinal fortitude to overcome and not become paralyzed by the threat of institutional pain whose sole objective it seems is to ensure rigid conformity to societal laws and conventions: which in itself increases the risk of us living largely unfulfilled, cowardly and impoverished lives. Man is so at home with his desires and impulses to unleash pain on his mortal equivalents that he has codified circumstances and situations under which it is legally and morally justifiable to morbidly prescribe the utilisation of pain.

To eradicate pain from man’s experience whether as a naturally occurring sensation – one of our endowed or evolved default setting – or as a conscious human creation we as a species thus far have been unable to achieve. And this might be more wishful thinking than a sincere desire of humans to sequester afflictions from the frame of human experience since man continues to perpetuate the weird paradox of deriving pleasure from the very experience he is seeking to extinguish from the totality of his existence – pain. Whether as a self-inflicted or sadistically administered means to an end, torture’s longevity will persist indefinitely as a reliable enabler of pleasure for the multitude of masochists and sadists in our midst.

Pain, torture, suffering, affliction and the entire literary oeuvre which narrates the collective experience of discomfort are the enduring and supposedly necessary binary opposite of pleasure. Apparently, the equitable coexistence of one with the other is essential for maintaining our psychological equilibrium. So, as much as we may continue to demonstrate and promote our preference for a pleasurable existence, pain will nonetheless continue to be a necessary force in the inventory of our psychic reservoir. Its utilisation and deployment are determined in part by our expressed desire for self preservation, dominance, pursuit of power and control and in extreme cases our diabolical tendencies to derive pleasure from pain itself.

Orlando Patterson

Dear Editor,

It is deeply troubling to witness yet another political maneuver unfolding in Bonaire under the guise of progress and protection. Mr. Nolly Oleana, former lieutenant governor and leader of Democratic Party, now hosts climate roundtable sessions under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for climate seems to be following the same path once taken by UPB leader Ramonsito Booi

Booi promised Laso Direkto and 300 million under the UN’s Millennium Development Goals to eradicate poverty – a promise never kept. Now, under the Sustainable Development Goals, these same funds are used by Holland to bait and control Bonairean leadership, this time led by Nolly Oleana and Edison Rijna, ex lt. governor and UN special envoy appointed by Dutch government.

The United Nations launched the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 – eight targets to reduce poverty, improve health, and promote education by 2015. In 2015, they were succeeded by the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with 17 goals to address global challenges by 2030. Both aim for a fairer, more sustainable world – but real impact requires genuine action, not empty promises. Holland has used these UN funds to mislead the people of Bonaire, this money to fool the Boneirans as if this money was coming from Holland not United Nations. Holland has used this money to fool the Boneirans as if it’s their money.

Instead of poverty eradication funds, we witnessed the destruction and dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles on 10-10-10. We lost autonomy, self-governance, and democratic control. Our tax revenues are seized without accountability.

Today, climate change is being used as the new disguise – another false promise, not intended to protect the environment, but to control the narrative. These staged climate consultations do not promote real sustainability; they serve the interests of a few privileged individuals and the Dutch authorities, who once again seek to raise another $300 million – this time under the name of climate action. But just like before, this money will never reach the people of Bonaire. What Edison Rijna is doing for Holland on the international stage, Mr. Nolly Oleana is doing for Holland here on Bonaire: pushing the illusion, while the real needs of our people continue to be ignored.

The hard truth is this: native Bonaireans, once 80% of the population before 2010, now make up barely 30%. This rapid demographic shift is no accident. It is the outcome of imposed systems that benefit outsiders while pushing our people to the margins. Instead of 300 million investment in poverty eradication, we were given three food banks. Our women work multiple jobs to survive. Children are left unattended. The cost of living is unbearable. The pressure is inhumane.

Meanwhile, laws that affect our lives are made in the Dutch Parliament – not by us, and not for us. The politicians we vote for are subordinate to The Hague. Rather than defending us, they chase votes – including from Dutch Europeans who gain voting power just three months after arriving. This is not democracy or representation. It is betrayal.

To Mr. Nolly Oleana, we ask: Why not focus on SDG 1 – No Poverty? What matters more: staging climate events to satisfy a foreign agenda or standing up for mothers in our barrios who can’t feed their families? What’s more urgent: photo ops or restoring the dignity and voice of the Bonairean people?

We urge the people of Bonaire: do not allow yourselves to be used again. Let the “fundraiser missionaries” – those rewarded for their loyalty – sit at those tables alone. Let the true, humble Bonaireans rise, resist, and reclaim their fundamental rights.

Our island. Our struggle. Our future. We will not be used or silenced again.

James Finies

Nos Kier Bonaire Bek