HEADLINE: “Those who do not know Aruba’s constitutional history should not lecture Aruba”
With all due respect, State Secretary Van der Burg’s explanation primarily demonstrates how little understanding there is of Aruba’s constitutional history and the sensitivities within the Kingdom.
Historical and Constitutional Reality
Aruba did not obtain its Status Aparte in 1986 as a “preliminary phase” toward becoming a full-fledged country, but precisely as recognition of its own political, cultural, and administrative identity within the Kingdom. The fact that Aruba did not become “a country” anew in 2010, but simply retained its existing country status, is not a minor detail. It is the fundamental constitutional reality.
When a Dutch State Secretary publicly states that Aruba “had status aparte before 10-10-10 and became a country afterward,” it demonstrates a worrying lack of knowledge regarding the relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Furthermore, it is problematic to suggest that Aruba should be “aligned” with Curaçao and Sint Maarten, as if historical differences are irrelevant. Equality within the Kingdom does not mean a uniformity imposed from The Hague. After all, each country has its own history, its own agreements, and its own democratic mandate.
Even more concerning is the tone of “one can say yes, one can say no,” as if negotiations are taking place between completely equal parties without any asymmetry of power. In practice, everyone knows that financial pressure, supervision, and political dependence do indeed limit Aruba’s negotiating room.
What Aruba deserves is not a paternalistic explanation from the Netherlands, but a respectful cooperation based on expertise, historical correctness, and mutual respect between equal countries within the Kingdom.
“Those who do not know Aruba’s constitutional history should not try to lecture Aruba,” said Member of Parliament Xiomara Maduro.