PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten – Leader of the US party Mrs. Pamela Gordon Carty lamented on Thursday that Country Sint Maarten, Curacao and Aruba need to go back to the table and renegotiate this covenant because it contradicts principles of good governance. “COHO goes against kingdom laws, international
UN laws and the constitution of country Sint Maarten, namely Articles 18 to 21.” The execution of COHO does not guarantee that country Sint Maarten will be in a better position,” stated Gordon Carty. The more I analyze this document, the more convinced I am that there was not sufficient research done to substantiate the much talked about results COHO is supposed to deliver. “The implementation of COHO tramples on our constitutional law and the rights of our people.”
The leader of the US party further stated that the sitting government failed to demand proof based on analysis conducted that the impact of the conditions that are being imposed under the guise of country reform will be positive. She further questioned, “How the COHO proposal came about? Was it thoroughly thought out? Or is it simply a means to dispose the countries of their right to self-governance, take over their major economic pillars and put the country on its knees.”
The Netherlands by compiling such a document is in breach of many articles, continued Gordon Carty, such as Article 2 Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter ‘Purposes and Principles’ which states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Article 73.a,b,d of Chapter XI, specifically Article 73.d states, “To promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to cooperate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article.” “COHO, the way it has been presented, will nullify the right of parliament to execute their main core activity which is the right to govern and the right to decide on the well-being of the country through the making of decisions on the financial and economic well-being of the country.”
Gordon Carty further stated, “That Parliament is being replaced by the COHO institution as a means of guaranteeing the execution of reform, but Holland is mandated by kingdom law and UN international law as being responsible for the countries SXM, CUR and AUB, meaning the implementing of an entity, such as the COHO cannot be imposed as a condition to receive financial aid. There is no law dictating that the countries are obligated to accept this proposal.”
In the Coho document, Articles 4.1a and b gives an indication that the entity will be the one to execute, supervise and control. “This goes against good corporate governance principles, because no entity should have the power to execute, supervise, and control itself, in a Democracy.” Parliament had a role to play and should have asserted its power to mandate and inform the government that COHO as presented is not acceptable, they failed to execute their core task of
protecting the main resource of the country which is the ‘people’ according to Article 44 of Sint Maarten constitution.
Furthermore, Article 2.2 of the COHO document states that the COHO is established in Holland, which means that it operates under the laws of Holland which doesn’t promote nor comply with , SXM, CUR, AUA and the Netherlands being equal partners in Kingdom. The fact that the COHO has such a setup gives it leverage in negotiations. The COHO entity breaches too many principles besides kingdom and international laws. Parliament has to call upon Articles 103
Chapter XVI of the UN Charter which 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,” and demand renegotiations, stated Gordon Carty.
“Why a government would go against their own constitution, and put their people in such a disadvantageous position while there are laws they could have called upon to demand renegotiation is inexcusable and negligent. Our people and generations to come deserve more,” stated Gordon Carty.
