Talk:Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original Research[edit]

The whole section on the Monroe Doctrine seems to be original research. Is there any outside source, anywhere, discussing the Monroe Doctrine in relationship to the K3 islands? Kww 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is complete nonsens. I'll delete it. Maarten 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

violation of the Monroe Doctrine?[edit]

Guiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe already joined its mother state France long ago, e.g. Martinique joined France on March 19th, 1946. http://www.martinique.pref.gouv.fr/pages/histoireinstitang.html#codenoir

The "EU open border treaty" does not apply overseas regions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement#Inclusions_and_exceptions 91.23.94.70 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Perhaps it would be better to give this a broader scope, the Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, with the eu status inside it as the minor change of eu status for a few islands is just one part of the end of this grouping of islands?- J Logan t: 11:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wouldn't hurt. This article needs some updating anyway, since the dissolution has been delayed, there have been numerous notable controversies around the details of it, currency issues are still being debated, etc. I also note that Brigitte Kley has been used as a source, which I'm sure she will get a laugh out of. It isn't often that bed-and-breakfast owners get quoted as a source of political information.
Kww (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

This article surveys the mechanical details, but it fails to provide the details of why this is all happening. This dry recital of the facts fails to satisfy somehow. I have the impression that this article was written by government civil servants attempting to keep the sordid details under the rug.

(1)What went wrong? All six islands are apparently spinning off into their own political worlds. Why? What political, economic and social forces were at play?

The statistics cited here are full of curiosities. (2)Why was voter participation so low? (3)Why was the vote in St Maarten so high for independence? (4)Why was Statia the only island to vote to keep the NA? (5)Why did even Curacao, the main beneficiary of it all, reject the concept of NA?

(5)What happenend over the last 15 years to turn them all against the concept of the NA? The idea of the Netherlands Antilles seems to have been an abject failure. Was it imposed on the islands? Who thought it up? Has this person been identified and become the subject of media scrutiny? Surely a failure of this magnitude would be of interest to the public at large. Was all this decided behind closed doors without any public debate?

(6)I have no special knowledge of this subject, but any idiot can see from this bare-bones article that there has been a spectacular failure in Dutch "colonial" relations. Why is there no Wikipedia article on this aspect of Dutch international relations. People travel to these islands by the hundreds of thousands and yet apparently there is something wrong with their governmental system. Are they even democracies?

(7)Does it not strike anyone else that this new system is also unworkable? What do the people of Bonaire, who did not vote to join the Netherlands, think of this development?

(8)Could someone please explain what it means exactly for Curacao, Aruba and St Maarten to become part of the "Kingdom"? Surely there is something about this relationship that we are not reading in this article. Will they be truly independent?

(9)Has anyone really looked at the feasibility and oddness of islands like Arbua, Curacao and especially St Maarten taking on the role of independent countries?

(10)And what is this business of the BES islands accepting Dutch subsidies but not accepting Dutch law in full? Can they pick and choose the laws they agree with? What the heck is that all about?

(11)The BES islands, soon to be Dutch municipalities, are going to adopt the US dollar?? This fact alone raises many questions. Surely this is the most important fact in the whole article. Are they to be Dutch/EU islands or are they not? They're trying to have it both ways. Will officials be paid in euros converted into dollars? Or dollars converted from euros?

(12)Another point: what will it be like for the Netherlands to swallow two English-speaking islands? Will they impose Dutch on them? Will they grant these English speakers linguistic rights within the Dutch legislative system? Surely not. Are the English speakers of Saba and Statia now going to be ruled by people speaking a language almost none of them understand??

So many questions raised and left unanswered... Schildewaert (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I broke your questions down by nummers. I hope you don't mind. I think it will improve the chances of people answering them.

(1)I think the Netherlands Antilles were never supposed to last this long. After Indonesia left the Kingdom of the Netherlands both Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles were being readied for independence as the political climate began to change against 'colonialism' as they saw it. In 1975 Suriname was more or less ditched and became independent. This didn't go the way it was supposed to go as the Surinamese economy went downhill and became a military dictature. After this the process in the Netherlands Antilles more or less stopped.

(2)No idea.

(3)I'm not sure if it's that high. 14% for independence against 11% for actual annexation into the Netherlands.

(4)Statia? I assume to mean St. Eustatius? No idea.

(5)To continue with the answer at (1) a big problem was that politicians on Curacao had alot of bad influence. Curacao is a hotbed of corruption.

(6)This could very well be yes.

(7)I get the feeling that something got scrambled in the table of Bonaire referendum results as the questions vary from the others. I don't see what's so unworkable. Responsibilities will be more direct. It will not be possible to blame the Netherlands Antilles anymore.

(8)No, they will not become independent. The situation of now is that there are three nations (landen) within the country (staat) called the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Them being: the Netherlands (Nederland), Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. Each of these nations have their own rights and requirements which are described in the article on the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(9)As stated above they will in fact not become independent countries.

(10)No, in the end almost all laws of the Netherlands will be applied to these new munincipallities(sp?) in due time.

(11)The BES islands are mostly depended on American tourism. Adopting the Euro will have grave effects on their economy. As of now there are no direct plans to integrate the BES islands into the EU because that will slow down the process. 5 years after the process is completed that decision will be reviewed though.

(12)Eductation will still be in the most relevant language to be decided by the islands themselves. Naturally, if a Dutch civil servant wants to serve overseas he will have to know either Papiemento (on Bonaire) or English on the other islands. Ths shouldn't be a problem.

I hope to have provided atleast some answers.


85.148.36.113 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for question 5, I'd like to add that the concept of the Netherlands Antilles (which included Aruba until 1986) directly stems from the administrative unit Curaçao en Onderhorigheden of 1845. Politicians from 1845 are not under current media scrutiny for quite obvious reasons.
As for questions 8-9, you completely misread the article. Aruba is not changing its relationship with the Kingdom. Curacao and Sint Maarten only become additional countries within the Kingdom, like Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are now also countries within the Kingdom.
As for "this article was written by government civil servants attempting to keep the sordid details under the rug": LOL!
Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This question still isn't addressed in the article and really needs to be. Could those who know the details and preferably have sources please put this detail in the article?- J.Logan`t: 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article in The Economist a couple of weeks ago that offers good background. There are also a couple of English-language books on the political status evolution of the Netherlands Antilles, although none yet deal with the most recent developments. The key government reports and newspapers are for the most part, I believe, in Dutch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which question Logan? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why.- J.Logan`t: 09:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because the individual islands voted for it. At the Round Table Conference of 1981 (which discussed Aruba's secession from the NA to become a country in its own right within the Kingdom), the Kingdom has conferred on each island within the Netherlands Antilles the right of self-determination. This is in line with United Nations General Assembly resolutions 1514, 1541, and 2625. In the 1990s, the islands voted to retain the Netherlands Antilles (and this resulted in the founding of the Party for the Restructured Antilles). In 2000 though, Sint Maarten voted to have the same status aparte as Aruba, and new referendums were held on the other islands as well. Saba and Bonaire voted in 2004 for closer ties with the Netherlands proper and Curacao in the end (2005) decided to aim for a status aparte itself (possibly in light of the Saba and Bonaire vote, the present situation more or less means that Curacao governs the other islands on the national level, because it is much larger than the other partners). Sint Eustatius again voted to retain the NA...

The Netherlands Antilles is a bit a weird construction. Up until 1828 the three leeward ABC islands were governed as the colony Curaçao and subordinates and the windward SSS islands (miles apart from the ABC islands, on which people speak English instead of Papiamentu) were governed as Saint Eustatius and subordinates. As a cost reducing measure, the colonies were ruled from Suriname from 1828 until 1845. This of course proved to be a very unhappy arrangement, so the Netherlands in 1845 decided to reinstate the colony Curaçao and subordinates, but now with the SSS islands included. This colony evolved into the present Netherlands Antilles in 1954. The Netherlands up until the 1980s campaigned for complete independence of the Netherlands Antilles. They finally gave in to Aruban secessionism at the RTCs in 1981 and 1983, but on the condition that Aruba would become fully independent in 1996, ten years after the entry into force of the status aparte in 1986. This provision was dropped from the Charter in the early 1990s on the request of Aruba (which did not want to become independent in the first place).

So to summarize, what happened from 1954 is as follows (my reading): the Netherlands wants the Netherlands Antilles as a whole to become independent ASAP. Aruban secessionism thwarted these plans. Aruba finally became a country within the Kingdom in 1986. In the early 1990s, the other islands voted to retain the Netherlands Antilles, but the marriage continued to be an unhappy one (owing to the large distance between the islands and the relative power of Curacao). Sint Maarten secessionism dealt the final blow to the arrangement. Saba and Bonaire voted for closer ties with the Netherlands (the fact that they voted to retain the NA earlier may well be read as an acknowledgement that they are too small to become a country within the Kingdom in their own right, but that the prospect of direct ties with the Netherlands proper instead of the Netherlands Antilles seemed far-fetched before 2000), and Curacao was happy to retain the autonomy of the Netherlands Antilles, but without the burden of the additional smaller islands. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following something. If Sint Eustatius (the English pronunciation, BTW, is messed up on the main article) has voted to remain part of the NA, and the NA are a country within the kingdom, then when wouldn't Statius remain a country within the kingdom, along with Sint Maarten, rather than devolving to a county? — kwami (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not here Vlissingen, in the article, cited.- J.Logan`t: 18:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statia's choice was basically rendered moot. You can't stay a part of something that no longer exists, so it is being incorporated into the Netherlands along with Bonaire and Saba.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just my 50 cents Logan, I'm not an expert. I've got no time to do research and write it in the article. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I figured that a vote for no change in status would mean that whatever autonomy the NA enjoyed would devolve to Statius. Seems odd to incorporate a territory that voted against incorporation. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't vote to become a country within the Kingdom either, so bestowing country status on them would be the really odd thing to do. The island has only 3,000 inhabitants, so it would be impossible for them to carry the burden of having a fully autonomous government with a Prime Minister, parliament etc. After the referendum there were Round Table Conferences in which the democratically elected island council of Sint Eustatius accepted the fact that the NA were to be dissolved, and opted to become special municipalities of the Netherlands, like Saba and Bonaire. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But for me that still leaves the "why" question a bit open. The votes are nicely tabulated, but why did people vote the way they did? Why did even the countries that voted for independence want to stay in the Kingdom? I seems really odd, given that socially, culturally and economically these islands don't resemble the Netherlands at all, they don't speak Dutch and will (for obvious practical reasons) not use the Euro. What also seems comical is that some of them will now get Dutch law forced upon them (I don't mean that negatively per se, Dutch law might be better for all I know) and they get to vote for the European parliament even though they don't use the Euro and are not part of Europe and will generally probably have zero interest in Europe's political machinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.74 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very unsatisfactory article if you want to know why the Netherlands Antilles broke up; typically of Wikipedia articles we have miles of numbers and not a clue as to what they all mean. And are we using "country" correctly here? Are all these tiny little islands going to have their own Air Forces, international airports, passports, and seats at the UN? Again, what were the issues that made a breakup and reorganization seem a popular idea? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of last September I wrote something in this article about the "why" question (following Aruba's status aparte etc), and separated the 1990s referendums from the ones from 2000. IMO, it's quite logical that an island like Sint Maarten doesn't want to be ruled from an island thousands of kilometres away. The Netherlands Antilles were a remnant from a colonial administrative construct, each island (and especially both island groups) has very different identities. Country is indeed the term used in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Country doesn't necessarily imply sovereignty. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum citations[edit]

The figures for aseveral of the referendum results are cited to Dutch Wikipedia. According to our guidelines, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations (not even Dutch Wikipedia), and external verification is required. Can anyone provide these (even if they are in Dutch or Papiamento)? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISO codes, etc[edit]

Do ISO (three letter) codes exist yet for those islands which are now 'separate' ?78.86.102.100 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet, but I guess the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for Curaçao will be CW (since there is no other option under C, and since Aruba has AW--stands for West Indies I suppose), and the code for Sint Maarten will be SX (after SXM, the popular code for Sint Maarten and its airport). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KO for Curaçao (after Kórsou) would of course also be possible. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to ask this very question :) I'll keep an eye on this doktorb wordsdeeds 18:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be redirected[edit]

It is just a fanboy article by itself. Needs to be with the main article. Housekeepers (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what you mean by "fanboy". Otherwise, your request is meaningless. ~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "fanboy" argument has no real relevance here, whatever it was supposed to mean, as this is a genuinely notable topic. The main issue is can/should this article stand alone, and that is an issue of content. The tables on the elections are probably unnecessay, and could be replaced by text. If that is done, than the article as written could be merged into the main article without overwhelming the rest of the article. But if the tables are preferred, and if the article can be expanded some more, then it is probably best to stand on its own. - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been expanded today to the point where merging it would be impractical without overwhelming the article with the dissolution info. I thus support retain this as a separate article. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of movement[edit]

Someone should explain the citizenship status in a bit more detail for us foreigners, focusing on practical considerations like passports and the right to move and take employment. I see the article says that citizenship is not differentiated in the Kingdom and that island residents are EU citizens: does this mean that someone from Turkey can move to Aruba and get a job there, and vice versa? Wnt (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the wiki says that citizens of the 3 countries are EU-citizens; and there is no implication of other residents. But, as no citizens of the 3 countries exist (their is only one citizenship: Nederlandse (Dutch)), I will rephrase a bit... L.tak (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Someone should start Category:Countries with no citizens. ;) But does this also mean anyone from the EU can move there? Wnt (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great idea indeed ;-). But to answer the other question: the statement is not reciprocal. Any Dutch citizens has as EU-citizen the right to reside in the EU. However, because of the OCT status there is no automatic right for all EU-citizens to reside in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. In fact, even those with a Dutch nationality and born in the country the Netherlands have no automatic right of abode in any of the antilles to avoid migration problems on those small islands (but then, automatic residence rights are not in place for islands like Ameland).L.tak (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey isn't a member of the EU yet, and it is probably still several years away from accession to the EU. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeward and Windward islands[edit]

Just noticed a discrepancy. In the first paragraph of the "History" section it states " the Leeward Islands of Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire, and the Windward Islands of Saba, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten" but in the first paragraph of the "Wake of Aruban secession" section it states "the Windward islands Curaçao and Bonaire, and the Leeward Islands Saba, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten". Which is correct?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dissolution_of_the_Netherlands_Antilles&oldid=1206983638"