Published On: Tue, Jan 19th, 2021

Pro Soualiga response to StMaartenNews.com review article

Dear Editor,
Please find a reply to your article entitled “Pro Soualiga Twists old study to fit its agenda
Firstly, Pro Soualiga does not have its own agenda. Pro Soualiga is merely stating what the United Nations declared in 1955, what the Dutch State declared in 2017 to the International Court of Justice, and what Dr. Hillebrink stated in his thesis. The fact that Dr. Hillebrink was awarded his law doctorate fourteen years ago does not change the facts stated in his thesis. His study was substantiated by Leiden University which happens to have one of the Netherlands’ most revered law schools.  Your article even claims that Dr. Hillebrink’s study is “thorough and exhaustive”, but only accurate up to July of 2006 while not providing any legitimate evidence of a more current “thorough and exhaustive” study other than Dr. Hillebrink’s work.
Your article mentions “Free association is a form of self-government” that “has been accepted by the UN as a legitimate outcome of the process of self-determination and decolonization…” According to Resolution 1541 Principle VII, an associated territory “should have the right to determine its internal constitution WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE…”  In other words, St. Maarten does not have a “free association” because Articles 50 and 51 of the Kingdom Charter give the Netherlands the legal basis to impose Higher Supervision while Article 44 of the Kingdom Charter does not allow us to amend our constitution.  As you can clearly see, there is nothing “free” about our association with the Netherlands.
Your article then states that page 102 of Dr. Hillebrink’s thesis does not state that the UN refused to declare that the former Netherlands Antilles had attained a full-measure of self-governance, a right to self-determination and that Chapter XI no longer applies. Page 102 states that Greenland’s Resolution (Resolution 849 (IX)), where they chose integration with Denmark “on an EQUAL constitutional and administrative basis”, included all “the elements which the GA (General Assembly) would REFUSE to include in the Resolution on the Netherland Antilles (Resolution 945X) the next year: self-determination, full self-government, compliance with Resolution 742, and the termination of the applicability of Chapter XI.”
Your article goes on to talk about what the representatives of the Netherlands Antilles stated to the United Nations in 1955.  Another reason why the United Nations REFUSED to declare that the former Netherlands has attained a full measure of self-governance was that the representatives were entirely Dutch or of Dutch descent.  There was no representation from the ethnic peoples of the Netherlands Antilles present at the United Nations in 1955. The Dutch were speaking for themselves and that is why the Kingdom Charter had a 28% approval rating.
Lastly, your article states that “the Kingdom Charter was accepted by the freely elected government of all parties.”  In 1955, those “freely elected governments” were overwhelmingly Dutch and the vast majority of our currently elected officials in St. Maarten would have been barred from running for office based on their race or gender.  Bear in mind that Resolution 1514  asserts that “the subjection of peoples to ALIEN SUBJUGATION, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights” and “is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.”  There is nothing more alien and subjugating than a Kingdom Charter which constricts our government from manifesting its right to self-determination and a full measure of self-governance.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
Dear Editor:
Please find a press release from Pro Soualiga Foundation.
As has been stated in the general media, Pro Soualiga Foundation has been engaged in two court cases regarding the implementation of the CRE (COHO) and the validity of the Kingdom Charter.  Due to the aforementioned concurrent court cases, Pro Soualiga Foundation has incurred extensive legal bills.  While the financial implications will never be a deterrent to pursuing and finalizing St. Maarten’s decolonization process,  Pro Soualiga remains eternally thankful to those who have covered our legal costs thus far.  Through their acts of benevolence and generosity, Pro Soualiga can continue engaging in its legal discourse with the Dutch State regarding the validity of the Kingdom Charter and the finalization of St. Maarten’s decolonization process.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
January 22, 2021