As the debate surrounding the Rijkswet Aruba Financieel Toezicht (HOFA) continues, a crucial point emerges that puts the management of the AVP-FUTURO coalition under a critical magnifying glass: the “non-binding” nature of the Administrative Agreement (Bestuurlijk Akkoord). Analysts are questioning why Minister Gerlien Croes and the coalition leadership chose to capitulate to the Netherlands, given that they legally had the room to negotiate a better deal.
The Myth of the “Tight Leash” The core of the controversy lies in the lack of political savvy in negotiations with The Hague. An Administrative Agreement, by its legal nature, is not a legal obligation that irrevocably binds the hands of future governments. This means that the current coalition, led by Mike Eman, Gerlien Croes, and Geoffrey Wever, possessed the legal tools to renegotiate terms before surrendering the financial autonomy of our country.
Instead of using this space to stand firm for Aruba, the ministers in charge are accused of acting “naively.” By accepting demands without a proper legal struggle, they transformed a document that was not mandatory into a noose that is now strangling national autonomy.
Opportunity vs. Capitulation Professionals in the field are sounding the alarm over the fact that, legally, Aruba was not bound to the current terms if there had been the political will to negotiate with the wisdom of a “political adult.” The question remains: Why choose the easy path?
- Lack of Vision: Are the “shoes of leadership” simply too big for Minister Gerlien Croes?
- Financial Interest: Does it appear that long-term autonomy was sacrificed for an immediate financial favor? Many consider this a diplomatic blunder of historic proportions.
A Ministry Without a Legal Basis The situation becomes even more delicate when questioning the legitimacy of the mandate holder in charge. Minister Gerlien Croes is acting as the “Minister of Kingdom Relations,” a position that legally does not exist within the Law on the Institution of Ministries (LIM), which has not yet been signed by the Governor.
This lack of transparency raises serious doubts: How can a mandate holder in a legally questionable position negotiate the future of our autonomy? In Parliament, there is already open talk of a “pathological liar” living in a “fantasy world,” far removed from the constitutional reality of Aruba.
Conclusion: The Legacy of AVP-FUTURO Without an urgent rectification, this chapter will seal the history of the AVP-FUTURO coalition as the government that handed over the control of Aruba to the Netherlands. The use of the “Administrative Agreement” as an excuse not to fight for a better deal is seen as the ultimate proof that this government failed in its duty to protect the Aruban people, choosing to stay in the good graces of the Netherlands instead of standing firm for our own rights.