AINDA NOS POR OPTA PA NEUTRALIDAT.

Kralendijk,- Kiko di nos islanan despues di e atake di Merka riba e instalashonnan nuklear di Iran? E ta un echo awor, sea bo ta di akuerdo kuné òf nò. Y nos no sa ainda kico e efecto di esaki lo ta pa nos islanan.

Independientemente di bo opinion tocante e welga, nos mester considera awor di nobo ki postura internacional nos islanan mester adopta? Un postura cual lo ta tanto beneficioso pa Hulanda como pa nos islanan.

Nos a boga pa hopi tempo caba cu nos islanan mester opta pa neutralidad den asuntonan internacional. Téknikamente e mester ta posibel. Tin presedente:

1) E archipiélago finlandes di Åland den Laman Báltiko ta demilitarisá. El a wòrdu deklará teritorio neutral;

2) E Islanan Svalbard Noruego (formalmente konosí komo ‘Spitsbergen’) ta demilitarisá (pero no estriktamente neutral).

Via di U.N. of un Tratado special, lo mester ta posibel pa haya reconocimento oficial di nos islanan como teritorio neutral. Specialmente cu nos islanan NO ta forma parti di OTAN-teritorio.

Esaki por ta sorprendente pa hopi, ya ku Hulanda ta miembro di OTAN. Pero arte. 6 di e OTAN-tratado ta kla. E ta bisa:

‘Pa e propósito di Artíkulo 5, un atake armá riba un òf mas di e Partidonan ta wòrdu konsiderá komo inkluí un atake armá: – riba e teritorio di kualke di e Partidonan na Europa òf Nort Amérika, […], riba e teritorio di Turkia òf riba e Islanan bou di e hurisdikshon di kualke di e Partidonan den e área di Nort Atlántiko nort di e Trópiko di Kanker’.

Aruba, Kòrsou i Boneiru ta situá hopi pariba di e Trópiko di Kanker. Pues, ofisialmente, nos islanan no ta forma parti di OTAN-teritorio. Lesa Kapítulo 11 di un buki kòrtiku tokante e futuro relashon entre

Hulanda i nos islanan aki: https://arcocarib.com/ebooks/in-synergia-unanimus/

Ora nos a skirbi e buki ‘In Synergia Unanimus’ nos tabata konvensí ainda ku e tratado di OTAN lo no wòrdu interpretá asina estriktamente ku aliadonan di OTAN (speshalmente Merka i Hulanda) lo a nenga di bin na nos yudansa, si nos wòrdu ataká. Desafortunadamente, esaki no ta asina bèrdat mas.

Trump su ‘ambiguidat stratégiko’ ta stratégikamente inkonfiabel.

Pues, nos kaso pa neutralidat polítiko a bira mas fuerte. Y awor tambe hopi mas urgente.

FUENTE: M. BIJKERK

ENGELS:

WE CAN STILL OPT FOR NEUTRALITY

Kralendijk,- What about our islands after the US-strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? It is a fact now, whether you agree with it or not.

And we do not yet know what the effect of this will be for our islands.

Irrespective of your opinion about the strike, we must now consider again what international posture our islands should adopt? A posture which would be both beneficial to Holland and to our islands.

We have long advocated that our islands should opt for neutrality in international affairs. It should technically be possible. There are precedents:

The Finnish archipelago of Åland in the Baltic Sea is demilitarized. It has been declared neutral territory;

The Norwegian Svalbard Islands (formally known as ‘Spitsbergen’) are demilitarized (but not strictly neutral).

Via the U.N. or a special Treaty, it should be possible to gain official recognition of our islands as neutral territory. Especially since our islands are NOT part of NATO-territory.

This may be surprising for many, since Holland is a NATO-member. But art. 6 of the NATO-treaty is clear. It reads:

‘For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: – on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, […], on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer’.

Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire are situated way south of the Tropic of Cancer. So, officially, our islands do not form part of NATO-territory. Read Chapter 11 of a short book about the future relationship between Holland and our islands here: https://arcocarib.com/ebooks/in-synergia-unanimus/

When we wrote the book ‘In Synergia Unanimus’ we were still convinced that the NATO-treaty would not be interpreted so strictly that NATO-allies (especially the USA and Holland) would refuse to come to our aid, if we were attacked. Unfortunately, this is not so certain anymore. Trump’s ‘strategic ambiguity’ is strategically unreliable.

So, our case for political neutrality has become stronger. And now also much more urgent.