Dear Editor,
I believe that I would not be far off the mark if I stated that the word ignorance is part of the definition of the cause of arrogance. When I was in my pre-teens, my father explained to me that people who use plenty of curse words during a conversation are ignorant, and their vocabulary is very poor. So that means that they are stupid. He told me that I should never refer to a human being as being stupid. Everybody is smart in their own way. The other thing he told me concerning a limited vocabulary, is that these people are usually the first ones to get mad during a conversation, because when they find themselves cornered (in a conversation) for lack of words, they revert to anger as a form of defence, and in so doing they will also change the topic.
Where am I going with this? It seems as if it has become a monthly occurrence in which some young persons are killed as a consequence of a traffic accident while riding on a motorbike. And it also seems that everyone is ready to accept that the rider of the motorbike is the cause of the accident because of the brazen and reckless behaviour that so many of those riders displayed and continue to display in traffic. Because of my experience, I know what is wrong and what is correct behaviour in traffic, and there is not one day on which I am driving on the streets of Sint Maarten/St. Martin that I do not encounter reckless behaviour in traffic by motorbike riders. Whether they are correctly dressed, leisurely dressed, only wearing a pair of trousers or shorts, with or without helmet, the reckless behaviour on motorbikes is constantly displayed.
So, what does ignorance and arrogance have to do with what I am writing? Simple, again because of my experience I can still recognize those who do not have a driver’s licence or permit to ride a motorbike. I do not think it would be farfetched to assume that if one does not have a licence or a permit to ride a motorbike, one does not know sufficient of the traffic rules, is ignorant of the traffic rules, and in so doing displays arrogance towards other drivers who are complying with the traffic rules as much as they can. Too many motorbike riders believe that cars have to pull over for them while they are driving in the middle of, or between the traffic in both directions. They do not care to find out why there is a traffic jam, they manoeuvre carelessly through the traffic with total disregard for what is happening.
What is the result of this? As a consequence of this kind of behaviour, drivers get irritated, and after a while are not ready to cooperate with the motorbike riders, which leads to hostility and eventually road rage. This is increasing because of the constant increase in the number of cars on the road. (By the way, I was told that government is not ready to attend to this because of who is involved in importing cars. I do not have these facts, so I will not go there.) This causes more traffic jams.
I am sure if this letter is published, by now your readers will want to know how is it that I didn’t mention “hopping”. In our days, some tried it but it did not last long. Even though we were aware that the government could have done more for us, and also different, my colleagues from then did not complain, we complied. Our superiors, who are still with us, know about the petitions coming from politicians individually (during election time) asking for us to be more lenient. People saw that cap from a distance and did what was required of them, but we had great Carnival with a limited number of fights.
Now this! As I was driving on Wellington Road, I noticed that a car was as it were trying to pass the one in front of it, even though I was approaching from the opposite direction. As we got closer, I noticed that the driver of the slow-moving car was paying more attention to the phone in his hand than to the traffic. I shouted, “Get off the phone!” I got a resounding F.U. as response. The lady driving in the back of him blew her horn loudly. She recognized me and said, “Boet him, he is blocking the traffic since we drive in this road.” This has become the norm with drivers. They put the phone on speaker, hold the phone in one hand and are more into the conversation than what is happening in traffic.
Several years ago, when I noticed the trend, I wrote to you that the only person who could claim that he does not use the phone while driving is the governor, because he has a permanent chauffeur. Too many cars, a very badly organized public transportation, and no control on the drivers of heavy equipment on the roads of Sint Maarten.
Russell A. Simmons
Concerns: the national interest of Curaçao versus the interest of a small select group, as well as in their foreign interests involved.
Dear Mr. Pisas and Mrs. Larmonie,
Through the usual news media in Curaçao I learned that there is an intention to conclude an agreement in the short term with a local group under the name CORC, to continue the oil refining with the former Isla refinery and to have the group also take the oil terminal at Bullen Bay into operation.
In connection with this intention, I feel compelled to bring the following to your attention:
The local news media of Curaçao also mentioned the formalization of the intended legal relationship with the CORC group in the form of a ground lease (to be granted to the CORC group). Such a ground lease for shaping the legal relationship is strongly discouraged for the following reasons:
The legal consequences of such a ground lease will be very disadvantageous for Curaçao, not only in legal terms, but also in economic terms, because in legal terms, the leaseholder becomes the de facto owner of the ground leased land with the buildings. And from an economic point of view, this leasehold will form an obstacle to the future economic growth that can be achieved for the country of Curaçao with the large-scale development of the entire Bullen Bay area into a transit port under its own management. This is a feasible scenario, due to the unique logistical position of Bullen Bay on the maritime highway via the Panama Canal to the Far East.
Also, one cannot lose sight of the associated risk (an unavoidable legal consequence) that not only the management and operation, but even the ownership of the oil terminal plus the adjacent water plot will pass into the hands of the leaseholder via accession.
Another, extremely serious risk is that the leaseholder is authorized and entitled to take out a (possibly very large loan) with mortgage collateral to that effect, the ground leased, including the oil terminal with the adjacent water plot.
If subsequently the borrower defaults on the agreed repayment of the loan debt, the lender is authorized to sell the collateral in an enforceable manner and then the deep-sea port at Bullen Bay could fall into – as yet unknown – foreign hands via that route, which, however, could fall into geopolitical hands which may be considered undesirable for the Kingdom.
In addition, the Kingdom Defense would be tasked with defending the Bullen Bay area against unwanted interference, or actions of the kind that the Gulf States in the Middle East is regularly confronted with. That military defense would not only cost millions, because military interventions are very expensive, but such a scenario would also mean that the Defense of the Kingdom would have to be used to protect foreign interests in the Bullen Bay area.
And then the Dutch taxpayer would have to pay for the costs of such an undesirable situation that takes place far from their bed on the other side of the ocean and in which they have no part. This will provoke the necessary irritation and resistance among the citizens of the Netherlands towards Curaçao.
There is no objection to humanitarian emergency aid here in the Netherlands, because in general the national character in the Netherlands is inclined to donate to those – anywhere in the world – who are in need, especially in Curaçao. However, public opinion in the Netherlands will not react so mildly regarding the high costs of military interventions in Curaçao.
In connection with the treaty obligations for climate control of the Kingdom (including the autonomous country of Curaçao, which is also a treaty partner) and very specifically referring to the limitation of CO2 emissions, the intended continuation of the refining activities will have an extremely counterproductive effect, because that continuation is diametrically opposed to the treaty obligations that also apply to Curaçao.
In particular, the punitive financial sanctions, which are already being imposed worldwide for violations of international environmental standards, will place a heavy burden on Curaçao's treasury in the future.
Recently, here in the Netherlands, a verdict was handed down against SHELL in proceedings initiated by Milieudefensie and several other environmental organizations. The decision was smashing against Shell, which has been ordered by court order to reduce by 2030 (i.e. within nine years) the CO2 emissions that Shell causes worldwide by 45 per cent (i.e. by almost half). The verdict has been declared provisionally enforceable, so even if Shell appeals, they must immediately start reducing emissions.
With this ruling in The Hague, global case law has also been established, because Shell is a multinational and all other multinationals in the world are now also exposed to this newly-established international environmental standard.
Government leaders worldwide have 'instantly' started to adjust their government policies, realizing that this jurisprudence has really boosted the global climate control movement and is now unstoppable. In the future, Curaçao will also not be able to avoid heavy financial sanctions in the event of violations of environmental standards.
Incidentally, I think (and many think so too) that this small, select, but private group does not really intend to continue the refining activities, they are expected to drop the restart of the former Isla refinery like a hot potato as soon as they own the deep-sea port via a long lease. They are exclusively or mainly concerned with the deep-sea port and the oil terminal with the existing infrastructure, which they have then been given free of charge.
The question arises whether the caretaker government of Curaçao is aware of the unavoidable and undesirable legal consequences of granting a long lease to a small select private (!) group and with their affiliated foreign partners, to whom in this way not only the main natural resource of Curaçao (the deep-sea port of Bullen Bay), but at the same time the existing port facilities there, such as the piers, jetties and the underground infrastructure, are also used.
I also point out that the autonomous country of Curaçao currently already has two public limited companies, namely CPA and Curoil, both owned by the country, which will be almost completely squeezed out of the market as a result of this proposed “deal” with the CORC group, in terms of their respective core businesses.
After all, CPA is the existing port company that has the required know-how and experience, as well as the necessary business resources, to be able to operate a port successfully. Curoil's core business is international oil trading, but from an operational point of view it will certainly not be able to compete with a giant such as the Brazilian partner in the CORC group, which is also an oil trader.
In doing so, this small private group, together with their foreign partners, is given the opportunity to reap the fruits of real estate plus infrastructure for their own financial gain in the future, in which they themselves have not invested a cent in the past for the realization of this.
At the same time, the Country of Curaçao is thus giving up a unique opportunity to develop the entire Bullen Bay area under its own management into a transit port, with which unmistakable economic growth for Curaçao can be achieved.
Finally, I hereby assure you that this advice is issued to you in the interest of the Country and especially of the people of Curaçao. It has an interest in the Country that natural resources, such as a deep-sea port, remain in Curaçao's ownership and management. And it is in the people's interest that the large-scale development of the Bullen Bay area creates much-needed employment and therefore prosperity for all of Curaçao.
I have no personal interest in it, but I hope and pray from the bottom of my heart that Curaçao will climb out of the economic trough through the wise policy of the new coalition and become a prosperous country.
Sincerely,
Marguerite Nahar
Curaçao
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 ~
My Fellow St. Maarteners,
June 1st marks the opening of the 2021 Atlantic Hurricane Season. This season the forecasters have predicted that it will be a very dangerous and active one, and therefore we need to be prepared. Everyone has a responsibility to prepare their home, and businesses for the season. We all know what must be done as we go through this for a six-month period from June 1st to November 30th, every year.
The season is already off to an early start with the formation of Ana over a week ago. I am appealing to the nation, do not wait until the last minute to prepare, but to be prepared in the event our country has to face a threat from a hurricane.
We are very much aware of what devastation a powerful hurricane can cause, after our most recent experience with Irma only four years ago, of which we are still recovering. This season, we are better prepared as a lot has been achieved over the past four years. For example, the completion of 11 hurricane shelters. However, there is still much more that still needs to be done.
The government’s Disaster Management Organization has been preparing for the 2021 hurricane season. All the emergency support functions have their plans in place in order to safeguard our nation in the event of a storm.
Follow the preparedness messages and advice coming from our emergency support functions if there is a hurricane threat to the nation. Stay informed and follow official government information channels for instructions.
When making your preparations for the hurricane season, you must also keep in mind the COVID-19 and the public health and hygiene measures that you must follow daily to protect yourself and your family.
My people, I urge you not to become complacent this season; remember, it only takes one storm to make it a bad hurricane season. History has taught us a lesson as a nation, and we know what we need to do to be prepared.
I appeal to everyone once more. Make your preparations for this season. May the Almighty watch over us and keep us safe.
God Bless St. Maarten! I thank you.
Egbert Doran
Deputy Prime Minister of St. Maarten
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
