Dutch Parliament refuses debate on Kingdom’s UN slavery vote

THE HAGUE--The Caribbean countries within the Dutch Kingdom were once again reminded that equality in the Kingdom is too often treated as a promise rather than a practice, after a majority in the Dutch House of Representatives declined to support a debate on the Netherlands’ decision to abstain from a sensitive United Nations resolution on the transatlantic slave trade without first consulting Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.

The issue centers on the Kingdom’s abstention during a UN vote on a resolution that described the transatlantic slave trade as one of the gravest crimes against humanity. According to the information presented, the resolution was adopted with the support of 123 countries, while the Netherlands abstained on behalf of the entire Kingdom without prior consultation with the Caribbean countries.

The matter was raised in the Dutch House of Representatives by Member of Parliament Heera Dijk of D66, who requested a debate on the government’s handling of the issue. The request received support from GroenLinks-PvdA, the Party for the Animals, Volt and Denk. However, PVV and the Markuszower Group opposed the request, while VVD and CDA did not speak in support of their coalition partner’s call for a debate.

The lack of support has added to concerns that Caribbean voices in the Kingdom continue to be treated as secondary, particularly on matters directly tied to colonial history, slavery, reparations, acknowledgment and reconciliation.

In the House, MP Dijk argued that the Dutch government had a formal responsibility to consult the Caribbean countries on such matters and that, at minimum, it had a moral duty to do so. She stressed that equality in the Kingdom requires timely involvement and genuine cooperation, especially on issues connected to the history of slavery.

The development follows recent comments by President of the Parliament of St. Maarten and Member of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams, who has also criticized the Kingdom’s handling of the vote. Wescot-Williams said the explanation offered by Kingdom Minister of Foreign Affairs Tom Berendsen was not enough and that the issue could not be addressed simply by promising better coordination in the future.

Wescot-Williams has also submitted parliamentary questions to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina, seeking clarity on the Kingdom’s position, the involvement of the Caribbean countries, and the implications of the abstention for discussions on reparations, acknowledgment and reconciliation.

According to Wescot-Williams, the Kingdom’s abstention sends the wrong message to Caribbean people whose ancestors endured centuries of exploitation and whose societies continue to live with the consequences of that history. She argued that statements of regret and apology lose credibility when they are contradicted by actions taken internationally.

The matter has also raised broader questions about the functioning of the Kingdom and whether Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten are being treated as equal partners when positions are taken in international forums. The concern is not only that the Netherlands abstained, but that it did so on behalf of the entire Kingdom without first securing the views of the countries most directly connected to the legacy of slavery.

Prime Minister Rob Jetten and Minister Berendsen have acknowledged that consultation with the Caribbean countries could have been handled better. However, according to the reports, no formal apology has followed.

For many in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom, the refusal to debate the issue in the Dutch House of Representatives deepens the injury. It suggests that even after acknowledging that the process was flawed, there is still limited political urgency in The Hague to examine how such decisions are made, who is included and whether the Kingdom’s repeated language of equality is reflected in practice.

The issue is expected to remain a point of political concern in St. Maarten and across the wider Dutch Caribbean, particularly as conversations continue on reparatory justice, historical responsibility and the need for a more respectful decision-making structure within the Kingdom.

‍