CKAIR to seek clarity from government on Kingdom relations strategy and dialogue

GREAT BAY--Parliament’s Permanent Committee of Kingdom Affairs and Inter-Parliamentary Relations (CKAIR) met on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, to discuss several agenda points, one of which focused on responses from the governments within the Kingdom to the unsolicited advice issued by the Council of State of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in connection with 70 years of the Charter for the Kingdom. The discussion referenced the St. Maarten response and the recorded responses from the other governments, with the committee focusing on how Parliament should handle these materials and what follow-up is required from government.

The chairlady, MP Sjamira Roseburg, summarized the Council of State’s advice as covering constructive cooperation, human rights, governance, consensus Kingdom legislation, and structural issues in Kingdom relations. Nine recommendations were highlighted in the meeting, including: cooperation based on local needs and wishes, strengthening governance standards, intensifying administrative cooperation to reduce unilateral intervention, prioritizing poverty reduction, expanding administrative cooperation among the Caribbean countries, improving arrangements around consensus Kingdom laws, promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, addressing representation of Dutch nationals living in the Caribbean in relation to the composition of the Dutch Parliament, strengthening the role of the Minister Plenipotentiary in the Kingdom Council of Ministers, and establishing a dispute settlement mechanism between the Kingdom and the countries.

MP Sarah Wescot-Williams cautioned that while she agreed with several recommendations, the committee should avoid an abstract debate that does not lead to a clear direction. Her remarks emphasized that the key question for St. Maarten is what the country intends to do with the findings and recommendations, and what the government’s strategic objective is in Kingdom relations. She referenced that there had been an earlier expectation that the four governments would produce a shared position, but instead separate responses were submitted. She also pointed to the trajectory of the dispute regulation as one recommendation that should already be moving forward, and asked that government more clearly articulate what is meant in the governing program regarding Kingdom relations so Parliament can understand the intended direction and debate it meaningfully.

Chairlady Roseburg reinforced that the existence of four separate responses raised questions about whether there was meaningful dialogue among the governments afterward, and whether any platform exists to align positions based on the advice. She connected this to statements made by the Prime Minister at InterExpo and the idea of organizing a Kingdom conference, raising the need for clarity on timing and content, and whether the Council of State advice will be part of that dialogue.

MP Raeyhon Peterson focused on the representation issue, noting the democratic deficit created when decisions affecting the Caribbean countries are made in the Dutch parliamentary framework without the islands having representation in that body. He raised practical questions about how representation could work in reality given population size, whether seats would be allocated proportionally, or whether each country would receive a defined representation mechanism. He stressed that representation should remain a live issue alongside dispute regulation.

MPs also discussed the nature and purpose of Kingdom conferences. MP Wescot-Williams noted that Kingdom conferences are traditionally executive-level mechanisms established after status changes, meant to review how the new countries function, and that discussions later stalled around what role parliaments would have in such conferences. She argued that governments must first agree to convene a Kingdom conference and define its agenda, after which parliaments can determine how they participate.

MP Egbert Doran raised concerns about the recurring nature of these discussions and stressed the need for coherence between what the country says it wants and how it behaves in practice. He asked for a clearer overview of agreements signed with the Netherlands and what commitments are being made, expressing concern that Parliament often learns details later. He also referenced a previously discussed tripartite or “petit committee” approach related to dispute regulation and sought an update.

After the exchange, the committee agreed on specific follow-up actions and framed them as three concrete requests to government:

1. Government should clearly verbalize what is stated in its governing program regarding Kingdom relations, so Parliament can understand the strategy and intended outcomes.

2. Government should clarify how it intends to promote dialogue within the Kingdom, including whether there is a defined pathway toward a Kingdom conference and what the timelines are.

3. Government should provide Parliament with an overview of relevant “onderlinge regelingen” and other agreements, including the date range, start dates, and which instruments remain in force.

In addition, the committee agreed that the secretariat will prepare a status overview linked to the nine Council of State recommendations, after which the committee will decide which recommendations require priority follow-up and deeper work.

‍