Dear Editor,
In a world where advocacy and activism are necessary tools for addressing societal and political issues, it’s essential to evaluate the groups and movements we choose to align with. Recently, the Baku Initiative Group (BIG) allegedly financed a delegation from St. Maarten to attend an event in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku. At first glance, this might appear as a sign of solidarity or support for the island’s causes. However, such overtures are rarely without strings attached, and BIG’s affiliations and methods indicate that the risks of aligning with this group may far outweigh any perceived benefits.
BIG’s methods are symptomatic of a larger strategy often employed by destabilizing actors on the global stage that thrive on creating uncertainty and division, especially in regions with emerging economies or fragile governance structures. BIG is part of a network of entities that align with the strategy of Eastern powers seeking to destabilize Western interests. This strategy involves using proxies and affiliates to interfere with Western-aligned territories, sow division, and weaken their ability to function cohesively.
For St. Maarten, with its unique position as both a Dutch territory and a French overseas collectivité, alignment with such a group could make the island a pawn in a larger geopolitical game. This could strain relations with Europe, upon which both St. Maarten and French St. Martin rely for economic and administrative support.
History shows that destabilization often invites illegal activities such as trafficking, corruption, and organized crime. In a community like St. Maarten, where social and economic stability is critical for progress, these outcomes would be devastating. Local groups must recognize that the introduction of destabilizing elements can spiral into long-term challenges that are difficult to reverse.
BIG’s controversial history only adds to the concerns. Its connections to denial of the Armenian genocide, interference in New Caledonia, and its antagonistic stance toward France paint a picture of an organization with a history of exploiting vulnerable communities for its own gain. This should give pause to anyone considering collaboration with the group.
For example, in New Caledonia, BIG has been accused of deepening divisions in its bid to support independence movements, not out of solidarity, but to further its own strategic interests. Similarly, its activities in undermining French authorities could have serious implications for French St. Martin, potentially jeopardizing its relationship with mainland France.
Aligning with the Baku Initiative Group could harm St. Maarten’s reputation on the global stage. The island is known for its resilience, hospitality, and cultural diversity, all of which contribute to its appeal as a tourist destination and investment hub. Association with a group linked to destabilizing strategies and global controversies could tarnish this image, deterring much-needed investment and tourism.
Furthermore, French St. Martin’s relationship with mainland France could become strained if it is perceived as being entangled with an organization that has openly antagonized French interests. The consequences of such tensions could reverberate through economic and administrative ties, leaving the island worse off than before.
While BIG claims to support marginalized communities and champion social justice, its actions suggest otherwise. Though fighting for a cause can be powerful tools for change, it is crucial to scrutinize the groups we associate with, ensuring their motives align with our own and that their methods do not undermine our goals. Not all allies are created equal, and the cost of choosing the wrong ones, as the case of BIG demonstrates, can be far greater than anticipated.
Local groups must weigh the risks, understand the motives of external actors, look beyond the generous gifts they bear, and remain steadfast in their commitment to serving the best interests of St. Maarten’s people.
A highly concerned citizen
Name withheld at author’s request.
