Dear Editor,
With much interest I read the article appearing in the daily newspaper under the heading “St. Eustatius deposed coalition files court case against Dutch government”. A petition was filed at the Court of first Instance to initiate main proceedings against the government of the Netherlands. The article states that the first hearing is scheduled for October 23, 2018. I can conclude there will be other court hearings. Their main focus is article 73 of the United Nations Charter, which reads: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount. … Question: Has the Dutch government acted in accordance with the law as it regards the interests of the inhabitants of St. Eustatius by removing a democratically elected government?
The article continues, … to ensure with due respect for culture and for peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their treatment, and their protection against abuses … . Were the people of St. Eustatius protected by the actions of the Dutch government?
The fact that the Dutch government out of thin air or as the Dutch saying goes (uit de duim zuigen) creates a law called “Temporary Law Task Neglect” and imposes it immediately on the island of St. Eustatius in my opinion is a blatant display of abuse of power. Will justice prevail?
The Dutch government when it comes to laws, agreements and their adherence to them pretends to be flawless. The contrary has proven to be the case. A clear example is NAf.180 million that was promised or agreed to for debt relief. Can I include the 50 million or so promised to the late Miguel Pourier who was at the time Prime Minister of the then Netherlands Antilles after he laid off hundreds of civil servants which never came?
The court is being called upon to adjudicate in this conflict between St. Eustatius and the Netherlands. The Dutch are signatories to the United Nations Charter. Article 1.2 of the Charter reads: … to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples … . Is the Dutch government complying with this law? Dutch politicians all too often reminded us that we are not equal.
The questions to ask are the following; Are the Dutch violating the United Nations charter by its actions towards St. Eustatius, and by extension the other 5 islands in the Kingdom? Is the Dutch Charter subjugated to the United Nations Charter? Must they adhere or comply with the articles of the United Nations Charter? The Dutch Charter in its present form, and I will extract Article 51 of the Kingdom Charter, freely translated is biased as it reads: If any organ in Aruba, Curaçao or St. Maarten does not or does not adequately perform its duties as required by this present charter, an international instrument, a Kingdom Act or an order in council for the Kingdom, the measures to be taken may be determined by Kingdom Act, setting forth the legal grounds and the reasons on which it is based.
What I noted in this article was that the Netherlands was not mentioned as one of the countries having to perform such duties. But this became clear when I read the following: A motion was proposed on October 10, 2018, to the Dutch Second Chamber by Mr. De Graaf in which he confirms that there is a democratic deficit or inequality between Holland and the other countries (note countries) in the Kingdom. His motion reads as follows, freely translated: considering that the Netherlands deserves or has the same rights as Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten; considering
that the Netherlands fulfilled her obligations as former colonizer (we are still colonies) of the other countries in the Kingdom in an ad hoc or careless manner; And pay keen attention to the following; to request the government to serve the interests of the citizens of the Netherlands by seeing to it that the other countries “leave our Kingdom”.
This statement brings to mind the one that was told to former Prime Minister of St. Maarten William Marlin by Prime Minister Mark Rutte who was angry and said leave our Kingdom because the former PM told him that establishing the “Integrity chamber Ordinance was not the priority of the government of St. Maarten. Minister William Marlin’s response was, “It is not your Kingdom”.
I look forward with much interest to the upcoming hearings. Will it be a matter of interpretation or the letter of the law? Will justice prevail?
George Pantophlet
