Dear Editor,
1) The Court’s decision had nothing to do with the content of the
letter addressed to the CfT. The court deemed Pro Soualiga to be inadmissible because they claimed that the Articles of Incorporations were missing. Additionally, the court stated that the Dutch State was not given enough time to respond to its grievances, and that there was no urgency regarding the CRE because no agreement had been reached between St. Maarten and the Netherlands regarding the CRE. In other words, the court didnt address any of the issues presented before it.
2) The Statia case is not final because they are still awaiting a decision after appealing the case.
3) According to Resolution 945
Resolution 945 of the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly is the ONLY body that can determine whether a full measure of self-government and a right of self determination has been achieved. In other words, the Dutch courts, nor the Dutch State, have the competency to decide whether the islands have attained a full measure of self-government or a right of self-determination as perscribed in Chapter XI (Article 73)
UN Charter Chapter XI of the UN Charter.
4) Any government organ from an administering state (i.e. CfT, Higher Supervision, removing a democratically elected government, etc.) which hinders the full measure of self-government or right to self-determination, is in direct violation of the Chapter XI of the UN Charter.
5) Article 103
UN Charter Article 103 of the UN Charter states
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” (In other words, the United Nations Charter supercedes the United Nations Charter.)
“A Member of the United Nations who has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
6) The former Netherland Antilles were placed on the list of Non-Self Governing Territories in 1946 under UN Resolution 66(I) UN Resolution 66 (I) The only way to be removed from that list of 1946 is through a UN Resolution. The UN has passed no resolution indicating that the former Netherland Antilles were removed from the list of Non-Self Governing Territories. Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, Greenland (and more) were removed from that list via UN Resolutions. Where is the UN resolution stating that the former Netherland Antilles were removed from the list of Non-Self Governing Territories due to having a full measure of self-government and a right to self-determination?
7) In 2012, Dr. Corbin, International Advisor on Governance and Multilateral Diplomacy who works closely with the UN, stated in his report that Curacao (and by extension the other islands) had a democractic deficit. Dr. Corbin Statement
8) Former Secretary of State Plasterk, Andre Bosman, and PVV leader have all admitted on the floor of the Tweede Kamer that the islands fall under Article 73 of the UN Charter which means we have NOT attained a full-measure of self-government nor attained a right to self-determination. Are we to assume that these honorable gentlemen were all fabricating lies while speaking on the floor of the Tweede Kamer? (I have attached their Tweede Kamer statements for your perusal.)
Since there seems to be confusion between what the Dutch Parliamentarians are stating and how the Dutch courts are ruling, the only plausible solution is for the Netherlands to head back to the United Nations General Assembly so they can decide. As aforementioned, the United Nations General Assembly is the only body that has to competency to decide. Not the Dutch courts…nor the Dutch state.
Lastly, bear in mind that according to Article 6 of the UN Charter
