Dear Editor,
It is confusing. On the one hand the Dutch government offers a very, very considerable sum of money for reconstruction post hurricane, but at the same time the delivery of the benefits is so complex that much unnecessary suffering takes place. It leads to accusations of all sorts, including the claim that the funds are really intended to manipulate local politics.
In order to understand some parts of this enigma, it is necessary to understand the long history of development aid given by the Dutch. This history in many parts of the world has proven that aid funds generally do not achieve their targets. A significant community with a long experience and some retained traumas is employed to try to improve this and improve effectiveness. This community is guided by the political pressures in the Netherlands, where past development aid has been heavily criticized (often for good reasons).
St. Maarten has not been successful in painting a good picture of itself in the Netherlands and extensive press material relating to administrative missteps (corruption?) has got substantial attention.
The result has been the choice of a specialized third party to administer the funds. The World Bank covers a wide range of services that are supported by 189 member countries. Its typical activities involve trying to ensure that development efforts are more effective than they would be. In many cases this results in them making recommendations that are not in the interests of parties in power or with popular movements. In many cases, criticism has been justified and improvements made. In many cases, criticism of the World Bank has been made by parties resisting transparency and democratization. There is a general consensus that increased bureaucratization is one of the greatest downsides of the World Bank.
When the choice was made to have the World Bank manage the disbursement of recovery funds in St. Maarten, the simple analysis will have been that this was a carefully-considered approach that got wide political backing in the Netherlands.
The particular circumstances of Sint Maarten, whereby this sudden massive disaster wipes out a huge amount of infrastructure and economic activity, requires rapid intervention was not the first consideration of Dutch decisions, even though the consequences of slow reaction may have shown up later. (Rapid intervention would have avoided more deficits and losses). The decisions were made by the simple rationale of delivering aid at minimal political risk in the Netherlands.
So, when politicians in St. Maarten start claiming that the Dutch are using the aid to manipulate the politics of St. Maarten, the simple analysis in the Netherlands will inevitably be that the political establishment, with their tarnished history, is resisting transparency, accountability and anti-corruption .
The manipulation claims may have a strong political resonance in St. Maarten, but they further complicate the relationship with the Dutch and future funding and support.
A greater understanding across the ocean divide would be in the interest of kingdom relations.
Robbie Ferron
