Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 22 January 2008

Background

The Netherlands Antilles, previously known as the Netherlands West Indies or Dutch Antilles/West Indies, are part of the Lesser Antilles and consist of two groups of islands in the Caribbean Sea: Curaçao and Bonaire, just off the Venezuelan coast, and Sint Eustatius, Saba and St. Maarten, located southeast of the Virgin Islands. The islands currently form an autonomous part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a member of the European Union. However the Antilles and Aruba are not considered part of the EU, but rather have the status of OCTs (overseas countries and territories;). Since citizenship is handled by the kingdom, and not distinguished for the three countries, citizens from all three countries are also EU citizens.

Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

In 2004 a commission of the governments of the Netherlands Antilles and the Netherlands reported on a future status for the Netherlands Antilles. The commission advised a revision of the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in order to dissolve the Netherlands Antilles.

On October 12, 2006, the Netherlands reached an agreement with Saba, Bonaire, and Sint Eustatius; this agreement would make these islands special municipalities. On November 3, 2006, Curaçao and Sint Maarten were granted autonomy in an agreement, but this agreement was rejected by Curaçao on November 28 2006.

On February 12, 2007, an agreement was signed between the Netherlands and every island except Curaçao. This agreement would end the Netherlands Antilles by December 15, 2008 and make available for the islands more than 1,000,000,000 guilders for debt payment and other purposes.

15 December 2008 The Caribbean islands of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius will become part of the Netherlands as special municipalities. Question is will they also become part of the European Union. If so this mini-enlargement will be the first enlargement that happens entirely outside Europe and may constitute a violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

The Netherlands has proposed that the new EU constitution allow the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba to opt for the status of Outermost Region (OMR) also called Ultra Peripheral Region (UPR), if they wish.

Accession and the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine proclaimed that European powers should no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the nations of the Americas. One core tenet was that newly freed colonies were not to be reconquered by their former colonizers or other European powers. The Doctrine was expanded over the 19th and 20th centuries to prevent the religious wars of Europe from impacting the New World, prevent the collection of debts by force, protest French intervention in the Mexican Government, and remove Russian nuclear arms from Cuba.

One notable case where the United States ceded the Doctrine did not apply was the Falklands war where the US noted Britain was not reconquering a former colony but liberating territory taken by an aggressor (Argentina).

The Doctrine applies in light of the following:

• The former colonies are becoming normal part of a Europeon Nation
• The former colonies are then becoming part of a European Superstate.

Deciding Factors

The following questions would need to be answered to determine if Accession violates the Monroe Doctrine.

• Who is the annexing state, The Netherlands or The European Union?
• Is the population of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius willing the annexation?
• Does annexation constitute a threat to the United States, its possessions, or allies?
• Will annexation disrupt or destabilize the New World?

Arguments representing a non-violation of the Monroe Doctrine

• The Netherlands already has colonial possession of the territories.
• The Netherlands is already a member of the EU.
• The Netherlands currently considers all citizens as EU citizens.
• The EU already possesses territory in the New World via France’s colony at Guiana.
• The Netherlands is a NATO member and not the type of ‘Old Europe’ threat the Monroe Doctrine was setup to protect.

Arguments representing a violation of the Monroe Doctrine

• The Netherlands has colonial possession of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius but will assume direct territorial control as part of a state. The EU does not have colonial possession of the area and is becoming the controlling power.
  • In the 1870s, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the U.S. would not tolerate a colony being transferred from one European country to another.
  • No New World colony has ever joined its mother state. Such a move would have to be non-compulsorily to be recognized.

• The EUs open border treaty will allow passengers and cargo to move from Eastern Europe, the Balkains, Southern Spain, and possibly Turkey to move unchecked and unscreened into Americas backyard.

• The Netherlands will not treat all inhabitants of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius as full and equal citizens.
  • Social security, for example, will not be on the same level as it is in the Netherlands, and the islands are not obliged to introduce the euro; they may retain the Antillean guilder pending further negotiations. Also, it is unknown whether prostitution and same-sex marriage will become legal in these islands, which are legal on the mainland of the Netherlands.

• The dissolution is not accepted by all states
  • The idea of the Netherlands Antilles as a state never enjoyed full support of all islands. Political relations between islands were often strained. After a long struggle, Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles in 1986, to form its own state within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The desire for secession has also been strong in Sint Maarten.

• EU Treaties will grant military access to all EU members.

Additional Considerations

Since 2006 the Islands have given rise to diplomatic disputes between Venezuela and the Netherlands. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez claims that the Netherlands may allow the United States to install military bases that would be necessary for a planned U.S. invasion of Venezuela. On May 23, 2006 an international military maneuver known as Joint Caribbean Lion 2006, including forces of the U.S. Navy, began.

The dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles will create an apparent vacuum in the caribbean that aggressive states such as Venezuela or Cuba may take advantage of by:

• Inciting rebellion / piracy
• Annexing Territory
• Disrupting Shipping / Trade

Dutch law would possibly allow drug usage and prostitution inciting ‘sex tourism’ to the islands.

References

• http://www.government.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2004/10October/08/0-42-1_42-49327.jsp
• http://www.government.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2006/10October/12/0-42-1_42-84824.jsp
• http://www.government.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2006/11November/03/0-42-1_42-88793.jsp
• http://www.government.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2007/02February/13/0-42-1_42-92711.jsp
• http://www.thedailyherald.com/news/daily/j226/accor226.html

See Also

• Monroe Doctrine
• United States
• European Union
• Enlargement_of_the_European_Union
• Copenhagen criteria
• Netherlands Antilles

Category:Government of the Netherlands Category:Government of the Netherlands Antilles Category:European Union Category:Enlargement of the European Union

When tagging an article for speedy deletion

When tagging an article for speedy deletion, please remember to give a reason why the article should be deleted. In the past 30 minutes, you have tagged at least 3 articles with the generic {{db-reason}} tag: Harrow Hill, Gloucestershire‎, Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah and Throwing down‎. Aecis 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re

But there is no redundancy, lead is suppose to be a summary of the article. By 3rdAlcove's logic, we should also remove the entire second paragraph of the Greece page, which talks about her history, also mentioned in the body of the page. --07fan (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean Greece isn't known for anything else? --07fan (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

This is with regards to your edit summary here. Please do not refer to a fellow Wikipedian as a "forigen basterd." Aecis 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When you are asking the question "what forigen basterd wrote this crap", you are calling the author of the article a foreign bastard. That's a personal attack by any definition of the word, and no amount of Wikilawyering can change that. Aecis·(away) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)