IPKO: A colonial construct that is IPSO FACTO not designed to empower us

Our parliamentary delegation just returned from the Inter-Parliamentary Kingdom Consultations (IPKO) held recently in The Hague. The meeting was convened at a politically sensitive time, mere weeks before general elections in the Netherlands. It is also interesting to note that IPKO was held almost at the same time as the UN General Assembly was celebrating its 80th anniversary. This bi-annual forum serves as a platform for debating the one-sided  power dynamics and structural inadequacies within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, often polarizing the views of the Dutch Parliament and its “counterparts” from Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten.

Historical background

The IPKO meetings are a mechanism established within the constitutional framework of the Kingdom. Since the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in 2010, (“10-10-10”) resulting in the current four-country constellation, these gatherings provide the only structured platform for parliamentary dialogue. They alternate between The Hague and one of the Caribbean islands, ensuring mutual exposure to different political and socio-economic contexts.

The discussions perpetually revolve around a few core, highly charged themes: good governance, financial supervision, and the so-called “democratic deficit." The positions adopted by the Dutch MPs and their “counterparts” from the islands are frequently at odds:

• The Netherlands (The Hague): Typically stresses financial stability, transparency, and accountability, viewing its role as a necessary supervisor, particularly given the financial aid extended. The perspective often leans toward centralized oversight and adherence to conditional reform agendas.

• Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten Consistently emphasize autonomy, self-determination, and the need for genuine equality. They resist what they perceive as Dutch paternalism and often demand that financial support be detached from excessive interference in their internal affairs.

The debate over the “democratic deficit”—the perceived power imbalance where the Netherlands wields disproportionate authority in Kingdom affairs—is perhaps the most contentious recurrent topic.

“Democratic deficit” is actually another euphemism for colonialism. The refusal to acknowledge that the Dutch territories in the Caribbean, in spite of their much vaunted autonomy or “country” status- are, for all intents and purposes, colonies, has made debates about “democratic deficit” what the Spanish call “diálogo de los sordos” - a dialogue of the deaf.

The very structure of the Kingdom itself is undemocratic. Or how “democratic” is a Kingdom that has a “Kingdom government” in which three-quarters of its “constituent countries” have a very limited voice and no vote? How do you have a country within a country? And by the way, shouldn’t a Kingdom government also have a Kingdom parliament? Or is IPKO, which has no binding decision making powers, supposed to play that role?

The “democratic deficit” reminds us, if we pay attention, that there can be no democracy in a colony: it’s simply antithetical. The illusion of “autonomy” is just that: an illusion. The levers of real power remain steadfastly in the hands of the Dutch. The professed “equal partnership” within the Kingdom is a pie in the sky, or to put it in more colorful Caribbean parlance, “a Nansi story”

we have been fed as a colonial diet which was never meant to nourish us into true nationhood.

The Last Meeting: Pre-Election Dynamics

The last IPKO in The Hague was also overshadowed by the impending Dutch elections, which further limit the appetite of the Dutch delegation to engage in serious, long-term policy discussions about redefining the relationship within their Kingdom. Despite this, the Caribbean delegations maintained a resolute stance on structural reform.

The consensus to address the “democratic deficit,” while verbally present, often lacks concrete action. As one Dutch politician, Paul Rosenmöller (Chairman of the Senate committee for Kingdom Relations), noted about tackling the long-standing issue: "So far we have not succeeded, but we have now said we are going to revive this discussion. Where there is a will, there is a way, and we have to find it – that is the only way out." This reflects the Dutch acknowledgment of the problem coupled with a lingering reluctance to move into action.

From the side of the Caribbean, the frustration with repetition and stagnation is often articulated bluntly. For example, during a previous, highly emotional IPKO debate on the “democratic deficit,” then St. Maarten MP Grisha Heyliger-Marten, a proponent of decolonization, and current minister of TEATT, expressed the long-standing frustration: “This is my fourth IPKO, and we are still discussing the same things over and over. Let's come up with a new, modern Kingdom Charter that works for everyone. If we can't come to a consensus, then break the Charter. Be honest and truthful to say that it is not working.”

Break the Charter. Shred it into pieces. But how many of the MPs on both sides of the Atlantic actually favor that? There was one. at least.

NOW party founder and leader, Christophe Emmanuel, when he was MP, even went further, challenging the fundamental premise of the forum: “My objective is not trying to make it work, because it is not working. I don't want to be part of the Kingdom because it is not working. I want the next IPKO to be about getting out, not getting more in. The next discussion should be independence.”

That would seem to be the more logical step to take because IPKO, like Parlatino, is a toothless debating club whose relevance requires urgent reevaluation, especially in these times of austerity and geopolitical uncertainty.

While there have been sharp critical statements coming from MPs from Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten, the final IPKO communiques often reflect a more tempered, even tepid commitment to dialogue. St. Maarten delegation leader MP Sarah Wescot-Williams, reflecting on previous meetings, has referred to an agreement to finalize the draft Dispute Regulation as a way to "decrease the democratic deficit in itself," highlighting that incremental progress, even if slow, is a valued achievement. However, her frustration at the current Dutch caretaker government’s apparent change of heart leaves no room for doubt that the MPs from the Caribbean islands have been played again.

The Dispute Resolution Impasse

In fact, a frequently cited achievement of IPKO is the commitment to establishing a Kingdom Act for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism. However, the progress has been painfully slow and subject to constant political friction. The current bill, which proposes an advisory rather than binding resolution body, is precisely why some feel it is "virtually dead on arrival."

Another point touted as an achievement of IPKO is the so-called strengthening of the "connection" between the MPs through open dialogue. Mariëlle Paul (Dutch delegation leader and former Chairperson of the Permanent Committee for Kingdom Relations), reflecting on the tone of the meetings, stated: “We are and remain politicians, so once in while we had harsh statements and confrontations. But there was also profoundness, vulnerability and connection. In my opinion, that is our greatest accomplishment: the connection that was strengthened because of our open dialogue.”

How useful is IPKO?

But, of what use is “open dialogue” when nothing changes and everything remains the same?

For Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten, the IPKO's usefulness is measured by a mixed calculus:

1. Platform for Voice: It is the primary official venue to confront the Dutch Parliament on matters of governance and autonomy.

2. Frustration Relief: It allows deep-seated grievances over the “democratic deficit” to be aired directly, providing a crucial, if temporary, release of political pressure.

3. Coordination: It facilitates the essential caucusing (known as the Tripartite meetings) between the three Caribbean parliaments, held just before the IPKO. The question remains though why this caucusing seems to be limited to IPKO and not held a la Parlatino in pursuance of common objectives of these islands.

It must be acknowledged, however, that the caucusing between the three Caribbean parliaments has yielded some soft results in creating a unified front and a coherent, alternative vision for the Kingdom. By presenting a single, negotiated proposal for the Dispute Regulation, or a shared critique of Dutch policies, their collective voice gains political weight.

While this unity has not resulted in legislative success (as seen with the Dispute Regulation), it prevents the Netherlands from implementing a strategy of "divide and conquer" and ensures their positions are clear and mutually reinforced. In the end, it is unrealistic to expect the Dutch to accept a reform of their Kingdom by those they really do not consider to be equals. The constitutional relationship is at its very core one of colonizer and the colonized and the earlier the islands wake up from that pipe dream of a Kingdom that is not theirs, the better it would be for all.

Is IPKO a Waste of Taxpayers' Money?

Whether IPKO should continue is central to the debate about the Kingdom's future. The forum is a significant expense, and can therefore be considered a "colossal waste of taxpayers' money," especially when fundamental issues remain perpetually unresolved.

However, the consensus among most parliamentarians, despite the frustration, is that the forum must continue. IPKO serves as the only safety valve that prevents a total breakdown in inter-parliamentary relations. If IPKO were disbanded, some argue that the “democratic deficit” would only worsen, replaced by purely governmental and, often, unilateral decision-making by The Hague. As one former Curaçao delegation leader, William Millerson, said in a different context, the importance of the IPKO is underscored by the need for countries "to stay in touch" in times of difficulties. The alternative—silence—is often seen as a far greater threat to the already fragile Kingdom structure than the high cost of dialogue.

But then, one may ask, why does the Kingdom government not foot the bill for all the island delegations? It would not be a case of magnanimous generosity on the part of the Dutch, but rather a reflection of the importance they attach to IPKO.  St. Martin’s “Philosopher of Humor,” Fernando Clark may have a ready answer for that, as he once described the Dutch as “economically stiff.” Alternatively, in this age of AI, couldn’t IPKO be held virtually to cut costs?

But jokes aside, why does IPKO not tackle transcendental matters such as Reparations and Reparatory Justice, the militarization of the Caribbean region, especially with rising tensions between the US and Venezuela and other geopolitical issues that impact the island territories in the Caribbean?

And, oh, by the way, in what language are the “fruitful” deliberations and the documentation of IPKO meetings conducted?

‍