Dear Editor,
That question was settled in the interlocutory judgment of 7 May 2021 in the case of Pro Soualiga Foundation (PSF) against the State of the Netherlands. Although the PSF has suffered a crushing defeat in this case, it managed to keep the topic afloat by conveying a wrong interpretation of the judgment.
The debate revolves around whether, through Resolution 945 of 15 December 1955, the United Nations (UN) removed the former Netherlands Antilles from the list of non-self-governing territories or colonies.
Before going into the content, it is important to outline the context within which this resolution should be understood.
Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations contains rules which, on the one hand, promote equal opportunities for colonized peoples and, on the other hand, support the process of decolonization through the exercise of the right to self-determination. Chapter XI creates obligations for the countries in charge of these territories (“motherlands”). For example, the “motherlands” must promote political, economic, and social progress in the colonies and develop self-government. Article 73(e) of Chapter XI states that there is a periodic reporting obligation for the “motherlands” regarding developments in the colonies.
When a colonized territory achieves full self-government, the application of Chapter XI to the “motherland” expires.
And now back to the content of Resolution 945. The Netherlands has submitted in the 1950s to the UN the new constitutional relations as they were laid down in the Kingdom Charter (Het Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It had to be understood from the provisions of the Kingdom Charter that the former Netherlands Antilles had reached a situation of complete self-government. In its resolution 945, the UN took the following view, to the extent relevant here:
“Bearing in mind the competence of the General Assembly to decide whether or not a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained the full measure of self-government referred to in Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Takes note … that the peoples of the Netherlands Antilles … have expressed, through their freely elected representative bodies, their approval of the new constitutional order, …;
2. Expresses the opinion that, …, on the basis of the information before it …, cessation of the transmission of information under Article 73e of the Charter in respect of the Netherlands Antilles … is appropriate.’
In the second point, the UN notes that, based on the information obtained, the Netherlands no longer must report. In the first point, the UN notes that the new constitutional relations have been reached with the consent of the representative bodies chosen by the Antillean citizens through free elections.
The Netherlands therefore concludes from this that Chapter XI of the UN Charter no longer applies to the Netherlands and that the islands are no longer colonies and are therefore removed from the list.
PSF, on the other hand, considers that the resolution did not explicitly provide that Chapter XI of the UN Charter no longer applies. At most, you can conclude from the resolution that only the reporting obligation under Article 73e has lapsed, but that the other obligations in Chapter XI still apply. The islands are still colonies in the eyes of PSF. PSF compares with resolutions of Greenland, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, among others, which explicitly stipulate that Chapter XI no longer applies to the “motherland”. Resolution 748 of 27 November 1953 on Puerto Rico says: “Considers that, due to these circumstances, the Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories and the provisions established in Chapter XI of the Charter can no longer be applied to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
What interpretation should we follow now, that of the Netherlands or that of PSF?
For the answer, we turn to the UN itself.
In its Resolution 1541 of December 1960, the UN included the principles which determine when a territory should be removed from the list. The first “principle” reads:
“The authors of the Charter of the United Nations had in mind that Chapter XI should be applicable to territories which were then known to be of the colonial type. An obligation exists to transmit information under Article 73e of the Charter in respect of such territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
This first principle provides that the reporting obligation under Article 73e of the Charter applies only to territories that have not yet achieved full self-government. This means that the revocation of the reporting obligation (as set out in Resolution 945) immediately establishes that the territory in question has reached a situation of complete self-government.
This is expressed even more clearly in the second “principle which reads:
“Chapter XI of the Charter embodies the concept of Non-Self-Governing Territories in a dynamic state of evolution and progress towards a “full measure of self-government”. As soon as a territory and its peoples attain a full measure of self-government, the obligation ceases. Until this comes about, the obligation to transmit information under Article 73 e continues.”
And finally, “principle” VI determines when the situation of full self-government has been achieved:
“A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.”
This makes it clear that the former Netherlands Antilles has fallen under category b, based on the Kingdom Charter. It is important to mention here that any new constitutional arrangement falling either under a, b, or c, must be established on the free will of the peoples involved.
It is based on the foregoing that (the islands) of the former Netherlands Antilles no longer appear on the list of non-self-governing territories. The new list was approved by the Decolonization Committee in 1963 and now consists of 17 non-self-governing territories. Anyone can view this list on the UN website.
Finally. All the commotion would not have been possible if the PSF had accepted the judge’s ruling from the outset. PSF’s claim read: “de Staat der Nederlanden te bevelen om aan PSF te doen toekomen de VN resolutie waarin de VN verklaart dat “article 73 of the United Nations Charter can no longer be applied to the Netherlands Antilles” niet zijnde resolutie 945” (to order the Netherlands to provide to PSF a UN resolution that declares that article 73 of the United Nations Charter can no longer be applied to the Netherlands Antilles, not being the resolution 945).
In response, the Court finds that the Netherlands has already complied with that claim and adds that another resolution on the issue raised is not available. From this judgment, you cannot draw any other conclusion than that the Court considers that Resolution 945 fully covers the load. Otherwise, the court would have ruled that the Netherlands did not (or could not meet) PSF’s claim. The Court therefore rejected PSF’s claim in full (the claim was inadmissible) and declared: “dat PSF een volstrekt overbodig kort geding … aanhangig heeft gemaakt” (that PSF has filed a completely unnecessary interlocutory proceedings).
However, PSF wrongly reads from the phrase added by the Court (another resolution is not available) that the Court would have meant that the Netherlands would not have complied with the claim. To say the least, it shows a lot of courage to express this opinion “en plein public”.
I hope that this will help to calm the mood on this issue. Let us stop wasting valuable time on it.
Etienne Ys
~ First published in “Antilliaans Dagblad” at
https://antilliaansdagblad.com/nieuws-menu/curacao/opinie/23722-opinie-kolonie-of-niet ~
Dear Editor,
I have always had a problem having confidence in the words of a person who writes letters knowing that they are liable to be published and requests not to publish their name. The word “false” always comes to mind in those cases. You are throwing stones and hiding your hand. That is what we call underhanded tactics.
I read that letter sent to you “Why did we pray?” because of the word “pray”. To begin with, I would not have used the term “by whatever means He chooses” and he/she goes on to determine what God thought we meant, and then further decided that God gave us a breakthrough via a vaccine.
I thought to myself this writer must have had a “burning bush moment”. I agree that every healing and for that matter all good gifts around us come from God, and there is where we should focus.
The writer continues to quote, “Where there are no prophetic voice (or declaration), the people will be led astray. My people perished because they lacked knowledge (revelation, understanding).” If the writer of that letter to you knows this so well and means well, why not recommend this be done so that those affected could get a better understanding of God’s word which should contribute to a better understanding of the purpose of prayer.
The writer writes, “I believe that we need some real bible common sense and stop the speculating about issues we do not understand that are misleading, damaging and kidnapping a healthy emotional well-being of many.” On reading this and owing to the fact that the writer wished his/her name to be withheld, I am not sure whether this writer is a charlatan being prophetic and should be accused of being aligned with those in Matthew 10:33.
What I have been instructed and as far as I have experienced: “God does not do halfway work.” It is usually your faith which contributes to the outcome. I remain open to any valid correction to my observation, but I believe we prayed and are still praying because we believe that God does not do halfway work. Even though I will not publicly let my opinion be known, I can understand the reason for that doubt about the vaccine.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Sir,
For the man in the St. Maarten street who does not particularly care whether St. Maarten has a seat at the United Nations but is more interested in whether the economy will not fall apart and the level of poverty on the island does not increase, it is not easy to grasp the challenge of Dutch aid and efforts at control and implementation of governance reforms.
It requires a look back at the last 10 years that the Kingdom relationship has existed. The fundamental characteristic is that the Kingdom government, together with island leaders, designed the governance of St. Maarten on the basis of the Dutch national system of governance with all the bells and whistles associated with that. Governance systems vary and each has its strengths and weaknesses and few people have said that the Dutch model is particularly bad.
There is hard evidence, however, that it is not working optimally in St. Maarten. Whilst the institutions function formally in large measure, the results of their efforts have been consistently underperforming. This relates to the top authority being parliament to the advice institutions and the executive branch.
Some of this underperformance is clearly a result of it being new and every expectation is that time will lead to some improvement. But much of it is because the St. Maarten population has not embraced the Dutch models in a manner that would allow this optimization. These institutions require to be intensely supported if they are successful. The system is not theirs and the optimization will only occur when the systems are fully embraced. That is a complex, subtle and difficult goal to achieve.
The apparent goal of the COHO is by having greater control to enhance the effectiveness of critical governance areas to achieve this optimization. The identification of what the critical areas are is not the subject of dispute.
Our problem is that there is no reason to believe that a more controlling approach to improved governance is going to work. Many of the past collaboration and support efforts have not worked optimally. Why should this more controlling approach be successful? Will it create more resistance or is it the final push that will make things work and get us over the bump?
The approach seems to lack any strategy other than “push harder” and this may lead to a result of “push back harder”.
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
I hereby would like to express our sincere thanks to the garbage collectors in our residential area. My family and I reside in the district of Cay Hill. For the past couple of months we noticed the new group of young men in our area collecting and cleaning up the street where we live. Also the surrounding area of Cay Hill always seems to be clean.
What is so nice to see is the young men are so eager to work. I commend them for doing their best and encourage them to stay on the right path.
To the contractor of the garbage waste and disposal for the Cay Hill area, we say, “Keep up the good work.”
R.D. Richardson
Dear Editor,
“Culture Time” should be upgraded. I will suggest that the hosts should interview the senior citizens to talk about the past and present times. Furthermore, the younger generation has to be included to discuss the future as well. I would also like to suggest that the program should be called “Culture and History”.
Mavis Arrindell
