Duty

MP Francisco Lacroes deserves credit for calling for an emergency meeting of Parliament following the U.S. strike on Venezuela that resulted in the removal of that country's head of state and his spouse. Regardless of anyone’s view of Lacroes politically, an elected Member of Parliament is expected to raise the flag when a regional shock could carry security, humanitarian, and economic implications for the Kingdom and its Caribbean territories.

Some of the public pushback, urging him to “be quiet” and “focus on domestic issues,” is understandable in a place where daily pressures feel relentless. People want attention to the basic services that shape life here. That frustration is real. Still, it does not follow that Parliament should ignore a developing situation that could quickly create domestic consequences of its own.

A common argument is that defense is a Dutch responsibility and foreign affairs are Kingdom matters, therefore St. Maarten MPs should not engage. That point obviously has a basis, but it is also incomplete. Parliament is not a military command center; it is an oversight body. Its role is to ask hard questions, demand briefings, insist on contingency planning, and require the executive to explain what risks exist and what preparations are being made.

The standard should also be consistent. When global developments and Trump's tariffs threatened the economy, the instinct was to call on MPs to act, to convene meetings, to summon ministers, to press for protection of local interests. The same logic applies here: when a regional shock has plausible consequences for the Caribbean, preparedness becomes a domestic issue too.

What can St. Maarten’s Parliament discuss? Plenty, and much of it is domestic. Even if defense coordination sits at the Kingdom level, St. Maarten has local vulnerabilities that require planning: airport and port, border monitoring, inter-department readiness, and clear protocols for information flow between local services and Kingdom partners.

When instability rises in the region, movement often rises as well. That can create pressure on immigration systems, increase vulnerability for people seeking help, family issues with the Venezuelan diaspora here and, as such, open space for exploitation. Parliament can press government on safeguards that uphold humanitarian standards while protecting public order and ensuring systems are not caught flat-footed.

The economic side is just as relevant. Tourism confidence, airline routing, insurance costs, shipping timelines, and traveler sentiment can shift quickly after regional shocks. Parliament can request briefings from tourism and aviation stakeholders, the port, the airport, and the hospitality sector on their risk assessments and what messaging, coordination, or support may be needed.

An MP cannot call the Dutch Minister of Defense and give orders, but Parliament can require the Prime Minister and relevant ministers to outline what conversations are taking place with the Dutch ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs, and how St. Maarten’s concerns are being carried into those talks. That is oversight, not overreach.

It is easy to misread early warnings as politics. It is also risky to train leaders to stay silent until a problem is already on the doorstep. The better civic habit is to judge the function, not speculate endlessly about motive: is the issue real, is the risk plausible, are the questions reasonable, is preparedness being taken seriously?

MPs can push on garbage contracts, GEBE, cost of living, and daily frustrations while also insisting on a sober briefing on Venezuela and regional contingency planning. One does not cancel the other, and responsible governance requires both. The public often says it wants Parliament to rise to a higher standard, yet sometimes behaves as though only certain favored MPs are entitled to that standard. Too often, we treat Parliament as either beneath the issues that matter or powerless over the issues that seem bigger than us, which ends up dismissing its authority altogether.

That skepticism may be rooted in past moments when MPs undermined the institution through their own conduct, but Parliament’s constitutional stature does not change. It remains the highest authority in the land, with ultimate responsibility for oversight and accountability. We should try make room for MPs to do what Parliament exists to do: apply pressure upward, force information into the open, and create a public record of who asked what, who answered what, and what plans exist before an emergency becomes a crisis.

So yes, St. Maarten’s MPs should keep pushing hard on domestic priorities. They should also insist on readiness for regional shocks that can reshape the local economy and social stability quickly. Praising that instinct does not mean endorsing any party, it means endorsing preparedness, oversight, and steady leadership.

‍