A new dialogue for a Seventy-Year Charter: Confront distrust, deliver practical cooperation

GREAT BAY--By letter dated November 20, 2024, the former State Secretary Mr. Zsolt Szabó invited all countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to contribute a response to the advisory opinion of the Council of State of the Kingdom. St. Maarten, like the other countries in the Kingdom, complied and Prime Minister Luc Mercelina set the tone of the response by stressing that today’s Kingdom relations cannot be separated from a shared history that predates the 1954 Charter.

He calls for a shift from adhoc fixes to structured political dialogue built on trust, recognition of differences, and an end to viewing the relationship solely through a Dutch lens. The Prime Minister's foreword in the report frames equality and mutual understanding as outcomes of sustained human engagement, not measures on paper, and invites all partners to confront distrust directly and agree on rules for talking before deciding. In other words, fix the structural imbalances that persist, and build a standing process for dialogue that can reduce distrust and deliver practical cooperation.

At the heart of the response is a standing Structural Political Dialogue Platform. The idea calls for regular, expert-facilitated sessions that create a safe space for elected and appointed representatives to negotiate preconditions, share knowledge, and seek consensus before positions harden. The platform is not IPKO, not the Kingdom Council of Ministers, and not a dispute court. It is a political forum designed to build trust, align expectations, and prepare solutions, including for consensus legislation. The model draws on consensus traditions familiar in the Netherlands, adapted to Kingdom realities.

The government points to recent experience in Statia, where a dialogue platform supervised by the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy was used, as proof that structured conversation can reduce polarization and reconnect citizens with institutions. St. Maarten also floats complementary platforms at national and inter-island regional levels to synchronize positions before taking them into Kingdom talks.

St. Maarten's response identifies four pressure points the platform should address:

𝟏: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡

Safeguarding rights, legal certainty, and good governance is a Kingdom responsibility, but how and when that power is used is controversial. St. Maarten argues that interventions are often experienced as Dutch actions against Caribbean autonomy, with the plenipotentiary ministers structurally outvoted in the Kingdom Council. The result is a sense that definitions of good governance are set unilaterally. The platform is proposed as a way to air standards in advance and agree on transparent interpretations.

𝟐: 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Cooperation should be voluntary. The response cites post-Irma assistance that came with conditions such as an integrity chamber and border arrangements. St. Maarten states that in a moment of crisis, acceptance was not a free choice, and that independent evaluation of such measures is lacking. The government calls for a formal, transparent procedure for consensus Kingdom acts, including rules for what happens if consensus erodes after a law is in force. The platform would be the place to design and monitor that procedure.

𝟑: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭

Letting Caribbean citizens vote for the First and Second Chambers is described as symbolic in effect, given population size and low probability of electing someone who reflects island priorities. St. Maarten argues that the real issue is power and procedure inside Kingdom decision-making. Hence the call to strengthen the plenipotentiary minister’s position, revise the Kingdom Council’s rules of order, and clarify roles around the State Secretary for Kingdom Relations. These are presented as concrete, feasible steps short of Charter overhaul.

𝟒: 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

St. Maarten supports a binding, low-threshold mechanism run by an independent body that all countries trust. It should cover legal and policy disputes between the Kingdom and countries, and among countries. The response proposes that Caribbean countries take the lead in shaping an alternative model and include regular evaluation.

The report also points to a structural capacity gap, with small scale, limited revenue, and shortages of professional staff that make timely delivery difficult, which can be misread as neglect. With the Netherlands Antilles dissolved and administrative centers elsewhere, St. Maarten argues that the Charter’s static text no longer matches present constitutional reality. Community voices on the island are calling to revisit specific articles on partnership and supervision. The response links this to the broader claim that control and coercion are ineffective, and that a recalibration is needed.

𝐀 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚

The response also lays out areas for immediate, pragmatic cooperation that a dialogue platform could standardize. These include:

Good governance support: clear, consistent definitions and enforcement across the Kingdom, with structural secondments, training, and knowledge exchange that respect cultural context. Integrity and corruption standards should be transparent and applied on both sides of the Atlantic. Cooperation should build self-reliance, not dependency.

Education and poverty reduction: quality education and lifelong learning are presented as the fastest route to better governance outcomes, labor market health, and crime reduction. Proposals include a Caribbean-relevant curriculum, expanded scholarships, and branches or faculties of Dutch universities in the Caribbean to reduce brain drain. The response ties this to commitments under the UN 2030 Agenda.

Regional administrative cooperation: a regional political dialogue among the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom would exchange practice, coordinate stances, and scale solutions that fit island realities.

Consensus lawmaking protocol: the government seeks a formal procedural framework for the full lifecycle of consensus legislation, including how to end a consensus act by genuine mutual agreement and how to prevent unilateral termination. The platform is named as the design shop for this.

𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤

While some civil society groups connect present inequalities to the legacies of slavery, the government argues that reparatory measures should proceed on a separate track. That allows constitutional reforms to move without being slowed by broader justice claims, while still acknowledging that investment in education, health, justice, economic opportunity, climate adaptation, and disaster management is necessary to build equitable relations. The platform could still host dialogue on reparations, but without tying it to Charter procedures.

The response sets measurable expectations. Over time, success would be visible if:

• the plenipotentiary minister participates under rules that give real agenda access and reasonable document timelines, which require revised procedures in the Kingdom Council

• consensus legislation follows a clear, transparent protocol from drafting to evaluation

• an independent dispute mechanism is established with buy-in from all countries

• joint programs in governance, education, and poverty reduction are co-designed and evaluated against outcomes that matter on island: delivery capacity, service quality, and reduced outmigration of talent

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐤

The report underscores that meaningful progress within the Kingdom cannot occur without clear political commitment from all partners. It emphasizes the need for each country to dedicate time, expertise, and credibility to establishing a structured, rules-based dialogue that functions on trust and accountability.

The report further highlights the importance of St. Maarten developing its own national dialogue platform to ensure that participation at the Kingdom level is grounded in coherent, well-considered positions supported by local consensus.

Seventy years after the establishment of the Kingdom Charter, the report stresses that trust cannot be imposed through legislation. It must be built through consistent dialogue, transparent processes, and the fair application of agreed standards. While supporting pragmatic cooperation in the present, the report calls for space to revisit and strengthen the Charter over time.

Ultimately, it proposes a framework aimed not at winning constitutional debates, but at changing how those discussions take place, moving from sporadic, crisis-driven negotiations to a predictable process based on mutual preparation, understanding, and respect.

‍