Four years after the Landspakket, Aruba once again stands at a crossroads. The question of whether the country should accept the Rijkswet HOFA has revived the same power dynamics seen during the pandemic: the Netherlands tying its financial aid to conditions that undermine Aruba’s autonomy.
Prime Minister Evelyn Wever-Croes leads the resistance against this surrender to Dutch demands, while her political rivals Mike Eman, Gerlien Croes, and Geoffrey Wever justify their support for HOFA by arguing that it was Evelyn herself who undermined Aruba’s autonomy when she signed the bestuurlijk akkoord (administrative agreement) in 2024. John Hart, Dennerich Kelly, and Stephany Sevinger echo that same claim. Meanwhile, the AVP-Futuro cabinet refuses to take responsibility for the current situation.
Money and Dependency as Instruments of Power
Let’s recall the context. The Netherlands used the COVID-19 crisis under the motto “never let a good crisis go to waste” to expand its control over the autonomy of the Caribbean countries. By attaching strict conditions to emergency financial aid, the Netherlands forced Aruba to surrender parts of its autonomy in macroeconomic and administrative areas.
This gave the Dutch government leverage to dictate reforms in finance, justice, governance, healthcare, and education. The threat of bankruptcy became a justification for formalizing Dutch dominance through a consensual rijkswet supposedly voluntary, but in practice establishing legal superiority for the Netherlands. On November 13, 2020, Prime Minister Evelyn Wever-Croes signed this reform plan, known as the Landspakket. Though the agreement was administrative politically significant but not legally binding it marked a new reality where Aruba consented to a framework that eroded its autonomy. Evelyn’s signature became the symbol of this dilemma: surrender or survival?
Evelyn Wever-Croes: Between Cooperation and Resistance
During negotiations, Evelyn Wever-Croes showed both determination and diplomacy. When State Secretary Knops introduced the Caribische Hervormingsentiteit (CHE) a body that would have imposed strict Dutch oversight over Aruba’s finances Evelyn cooperated strategically but simultaneously rallied both coalition and opposition parties to reject CHE. Her dual strategy of cooperation and political resistance strengthened Aruba’s position. She accepted that the country needed aid but refused to allow that need to justify surrendering sovereignty. This balance between realism and resistance defined her leadership.
From COHO to TWO: How Evelyn Preserved Autonomy
Thanks to Evelyn’s efforts, the Netherlands ultimately withdrew the CHE proposal and later replaced COHO another control mechanism with the Tijdelijke Werkorganisatie (TWO) through a mutual agreement (onderlinge regeling) based on equality. The TWO provided technical support for implementing reforms but within a cooperative framework, not a colonial one.
This shift from imposed oversight to negotiated partnership was Evelyn’s key achievement. Even the Dutch Raad van State sided with her critique, warning that COHO would undermine Aruba’s ownership and commitment to reform.
AVP-Futuro: A Cabinet Without Backbone
Today, four years later, the Netherlands still uses financial aid to influence autonomy — but this time, Aruba’s government is not resisting. The AVP-Futuro cabinet hides behind excuses, blaming Evelyn instead of defending the nation’s interests.
While Evelyn once used strategy and conviction to protect autonomy, today’s leaders focus on image and politics: Mike Eman seeks visibility through symbolic gestures, Gerlien Croes uses the media to stay relevant, and Geoffrey Wever drifts aimlessly.
Aruba is not only losing its autonomy but also its moral and political integrity.
Written by Ryçond Santos do Nascimento