St. Maarten to demand specific
clarification on Dutch motion
PHILIPSBURG--St. Maarten will be demanding specific clarification from the Dutch Government on what the island is supposed to do now that a motion has been accepted in the Dutch Second Chamber reinforcing earlier warnings that St. Maarten can only become a country within the Dutch Kingdom if it complies with all conditions in the area of justice.
It still baffles Constitutional Affairs Commissioner Sarah Wescot-Williams how the Dutch Parliamentarians do not understand that they cannot expect St. Maarten to bypass the Constitution of the Netherlands Antilles and the responsibility of the Central Government and set up its own Justice Ministry.
“How can I go to the police and tell them they must not listen to the Minister anymore?” the Commissioner said.
All political factions with the exception of the Party for Freedom PVV voted on Tuesday in favour of the motion presented in Parliament last week Thursday. In that motion, the Dutch Government is ordered not to agree to an autonomous status for St. Maarten until it has complied with the conditions of adequate maintenance of law and order and administration of justice. These conditions were set in the November 2006 Final Accord.
The motion was the initiative of Christian Democratic Party CDA Member of Parliament (MP) Bas Jan van Bochove and was co-signed by John Leerdam of the labour party PvdA and Cynthia Ortega-Martijn of the Christian Union CU.
Wescot-Williams said the Dutch must stop with their “vague terms” and tell St. Maarten exactly what it was they wanted.
While going through newspaper articles about last week’s debates in the Second Chamber and pondering on State Secretary Ank Bijleveld-Schouten’s statement that the December 15 Round Table Conference would be to hear whether it was a “go or no-go” for St. Maarten, Wescot-Williams said she was about to forward an e-mail to Project Director for Constitutional Affairs Dennis Richardson on asking the Dutch Government for specific clarification.
Richardson told The Daily Herald in an invited comment that he had “no clue” what the Dutch Government wanted with the motion that had been accepted and with what St. Maarten was supposed to comply.
“I don’t know what they mean. We have an agreement on the upgrading of the Police Force. If asked, my advice to the Commissioner would be to demand clarification what specifically St. Maarten should comply with if it’s not the agreement made in the RTC or the November 2, 2006, Final Accord,” Richardson said.
He said that if new conditions were being set, neither the Dutch Parliament nor the Dutch Government could make St. Maarten accept a status similar to the BES islands Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba. “It’s the people of St. Maarten who decide.”
If necessary, Richardson said, St. Maarten will take the Dutch Government to the international court, based on United Nations resolutions on the right of self-determination, “even if it means bringing the constitutional change process to a screeching halt.”
Constitutional Affairs Minister Roland Duncan agreed with the point of view of the Dutch Parliament that St. Maarten is not being managed properly. However, he said that not managing the island properly had nothing to do with the right of self determination.
“The Dutch cannot decide that because they do not want certain people in office, St. Maarten cannot attain country status or that it should have the same status as the BES islands. There will be elections next year and it will be up to the people of St. Maarten to decide,” Duncan said.
He used the examples of the Social Economic Initiative (SEI) and the draft constitution not brought to the floor of the Island Council to point out that in his view the island is not being properly managed.
“In Curaçao the Island Council approved the SEI and the Island Council approved the draft constitution before it was forwarded to the preparatory committee of the RTC. The Island Council in St. Maarten never approved the SEI and the Permanent Committee for Constitutional Affairs cannot approve the draft constitution.
“It’s a committee, not the Island Council. St. Maarten is systematically excluding the Island Council. That’s why the Dutch want to enforce higher supervision,” said Duncan.
Regarding calls from Dutch parliamentarians to enforce higher supervision on St. Maarten because it’s not complying with agreements made, he said furthermore he did not have a clear view on whether St. Maarten was or was not complying.
“That is the grind I have with St. Maarten. It’s not transparent. They have to play open card.” He advised the Island Government to sit down with the Dutch Government and discuss the matter. “A good leader must also be able to stop and look at the situation and acknowledge that things maybe should be done differently.”
Duncan also did not agree with Wescot-Williams that the island could not set up its own Justice Ministry, saying that the government was contradicting itself.
“St. Maarten is busy creating a new country. You have to build up your structure. Besides putting it on paper and identifying how many personnel, you have to also set it up physically. If you don’t have the money to do it, draft a budget and discuss it with the Dutch. What does St. Maarten expect, for [Justice Minister David] Dick to set it up?”
