Can there be unity without reunification? A St. Martin Day Reimagination

Many rains ago, (or so it seems) I wrote an article published in Discover magazine titled “The reunification of St. Martin: A Pipe Dream or an Inevitable Choice?” The year was 2004. House of Nehesi Publishers (HNP) later published it online in December of the same year. I have decided to revisit that article for this St. Martin Day.

The core question for me now is: Can we continue to talk of unity without thinking about the reunification of the island?

Unity is the perennial theme of our St. Martin Day celebrations. It has become a ritual invocation - devoid of meaning - for our political leaders to repeat it by rote every St. Martin Day like kindergarteners made to recite a Shakespearean sonnet.

Unity? What unity when the division of the island is so imbedded in our minds and hearts, and in our psyche and perception of ourselves that it marches out of our tongues in the language we use to describe our existential reality?

We drive a sharp knife through the very soul of our people when we slash the very name of the island into two: St. Maarten/St. Martin and consequently erase the historical origins of the name itself, never mind the potpourri of spellings that belie our insecurity, confusion and uncertainty about how to write our own name. Isn’t that one of the first things kindergarteners are taught? I have searched long and hard to find which cartographer named us “St. Maarten/St. Martin” on any serious map and I’m still searching.

Names do matter; how we write them too. Mary, and Marie cannot be used simultaneously for the same woman. Neither can the same man be called Pierre and Piet at the same time. If you doubt the importance of spelling, think about how Arrindell became Arndell or Arnell!

Our ancestors are demanding that we do better. The island is crying out to us: “Say my name!” Correctly! We cannot claim to be ONE island, ONE people when we can’t even say our name properly. We must emancipate ourselves from that mental Slavery because the division of our St. Martin nation starts in our minds with our name.

I had truly believed that we had finally taken a crucial step towards reunification when both administrations in Marigot and Great Bay adopted the Unity Flag as a “cultural symbol” of our nation. That should be the ONLY flag we fly on St. Martin Day. I’m not so sure about the number of flags that we will be seeing on this 37 square miles we call home especially with one more territorial flag soon to be added.

Siamese Twins?

It was educator and historian Daniella Jeffrey of evergreen memory who coined the phrase “Siamese twins” as a metaphor for the unity of our island. Upon closer scrutiny however, Siamese twins are joined together by nature, but they’re still TWO, not ONE. And modern medicine has advanced so much that they can be separated. I do not believe we want to be separated surgically or otherwise. We are not joined at the head, and umbilical cord; we are ONE! We live as one, breath as one but do we really ACT as one?

We all know the script of the speeches we expect to hear echo from podiums in Marigot and Great Bay on November 11. Politicians will invoke the Treaty of Concordia of 1648, praise the sweet, uninterrupted movement of people, and proclaim that “one people, one destiny” is not merely a slogan, but a lived reality. However, last I checked the vast majority of our ancestors weren’t even considered to be human beings in 1648.  They were chattel; they were property of their enslavers.

After the flowery speeches, and before the decorations of the official ceremonies are pulled down, I bet the island will quietly revert to its daily existence: two distinct political administrations, two judicial systems, two educational frameworks, three currencies, and two direct lines of authority running back to European capitals—Paris and The Hague.

For me, then, this annual ritual raises a fundamental, existential question: Can there be genuine unity without political reunification?

To explore this dilemma is to venture into the tension between cultural oneness and colonial fragmentation. In the article I referenced above, I addressed the core paradox of St. Martin's existence: while the people share an unbroken historic identity, their political structures remain tethered to European powers that partitioned the territory centuries ago.

This partition was further reinforced with the recent signing of a new border treaty.

As I argued in that article, the debate over reunification is not an abstract ideological exercise, but a choice between maintaining comfortable political platitudes or confronting the institutional reality of being a colonial condominium of France and The Netherlands.

The Illusion of Oneness and the Platitude of Unity

The idea of St. Martin’s oneness is undeniable on a human level. Long before modern borders were established, long before European integration frameworks, the indigenous Taino named the island Sualouiga, meaning "land of salt." The arrival of European powers superimposed artificial divisions, but the people they forcibly brought here forged an organic kinship. Families span both sides; cultural expressions, music, cuisine, and language pay no homage to border demarcations or flags.

However, our political leaders have historically used this natural, cultural oneness as a shield against structural change. On November 11, the political establishment routinely indulges in sweeping rhetoric about island-wide solidarity. Unity is celebrated as an accomplished fact — a romantic inheritance guaranteed by history.

Yet, as I have written before, this celebrated unity often functions as a political sedative. It allows governments on both sides to pay lip service to brotherhood while actively operating two separate, duplicating bureaucratic machineries. Maintaining two entirely separate administrations on an island this size generates an expensive duplication — spending public funds to staff, acquire, and operate two distinct healthcare, educational, and infrastructural systems when coordinated or unified structures would far better serve the population.

When unity is defined merely as harmonious cohabitation under two foreign sovereign states, it ceases to be an active project for self-determination. Instead, it becomes a platitude — a ceremonial performance repeated annually while the structural reliance on Paris and The Hague deepens.

The Colonial Condominium: Partitioned and Controlled by European Powers

To understand why our professed unity remains fragile requires that we examine the island's status as a colonial condominium of France and The Netherlands. Though modern legal nomenclature labels the northern half as an “overseas collectivity” of France and the southern side an “autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands,” the structural essence remains colonial. Both sides answer to metropolitan powers whose primary geopolitical and legal interests lie far across the Atlantic.

This double external dependency creates a permanent structural fracture. When decisions regarding immigration, environmental regulations, judicial enforcement, taxation, etc. are made, the primary reference points are not local, cross-border realities; they are European legal codes and constitutional directives.

As I have previously highlighted, this dynamic forces St. Martiners to look outward to Europe for solutions to local problems rather than looking across the open border to each other. The partition, originally drawn up for imperial interests during the colonial land grabs of the 17th century, lives on through modern administrative walls.

During global crises, hurricane recovery efforts, or public health emergencies, the myth of borderless unity quickly evaporates under the weight of these administrative divisions. Separate disaster management protocols, conflicting health directives, and differing regulatory frameworks reveal that without unified political mechanisms, island unity is easily overridden by European directives. As the patriot Felix Choisy famously noted, "the gale does not stop at the frontier" —yet administrative mandates almost always do.

Lessons from Global History

World history demonstrates that shared culture, language, and geography are rarely sufficient on their own to preserve true unity in the absence of unified state structures. International precedents provide crucial insights into how fragmented nations either successfully overcame artificial borders or remain trapped by them.

1. The Reunification of Germany (1990)

The division of Germany into West Germany and East Germany after World War II was widely viewed as a permanent geopolitical reality. For over four decades, both sides maintained that the German people shared a common culture, history, and identity. Yet, despite this deep-rooted sense of nationhood, the reality of living under two diametrically opposed political, economic, and administrative systems created diverging trajectories.

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it became immediately clear that "cultural unity" alone could not solve the practical realities of a divided people. Full reunification through the Basic Law of October 1990 was not merely a symbolic triumph; it was a mandatory structural step to align monetary policy, legal governance, and public infrastructure.

The German experience proves that while cultural oneness preserves the idea of a nation, only political and structural integration can safeguard its long-term sovereignty, viability and sustainability.

2. The European Union: Integration Without Political Union

Conversely, the evolution of the European Union offers a lesson in the limitations of partial integration. The EU successfully eliminated economic borders, created a shared currency for many of its members, and allowed the free movement of goods and people. De facto, these have always existed on our island.

However, when systemic crises hit —such as financial shocks or migration challenges — the lack of a single, sovereign political entity often causes states to retreat into national self-interest.

For St. Martin, relying on an "EU-style" informal arrangement of cross-border cooperation without constitutional integration leaves the island exposed to the same structural flaws: local promises of unity break down the moment French or Dutch metropolitan laws enforce conflicting mandates. That is a clear reminder of our colonial status. Unlike the EU member states who are sovereign and can therefore decide for themselves, to join the union or leave it (as Britain did), St. Martin is still under the colonial control of two of those EU states.

3. Divided Nations Across the Globe (Korea and Cyprus)

The tragic ongoing partitions of Korea and Cyprus further highlight the danger of administrative stalemate. In both cases, despite centuries of shared heritage and continuous political rhetoric advocating for peace and solidarity, decades of separate governance, distinct legal frameworks, and external alliance structures have entrenched the divisions. Over time, administrative separation creates distinct bureaucratic elites and economic dependencies that actively resist merger.

St. Martin risks walking a similar path if it allows symbolic speeches of cooperation on November 11 to substitute for real political consolidation and reunification.

Nationhood vs. Statehood: Reimagining the St. Martin Identity

Can a people possess nationhood without possessing a unified state? In the St. Martin context, nationhood already exists in the collective consciousness, cultural memory, and daily lived experience of its people. The St. Martin nation is realized every time citizens seamlessly cross the invisible border for work, commerce, family gatherings, cultural activities, etc.

However, nationhood without a unified political form remains structurally vulnerable. Without constitutional structures that allow the island to speak with one voice, St. Martin’s nationhood operates in a state of perpetual limbo. It is a nation deferred — rich in cultural cohesion but devoid of collective political agency. Hence, when each side talks about “national budget,” “national baseball team,” etc. the adjective “national”  refers only to either the 16-square mile territory under Dutch control or the 21-square mile jurisdiction firmly integrated into the French Republic.

This brings us back to the central dilemma: Is reunification an impossible fantasy, an idealistic dream or is it the inevitable end goal of a genuine decolonization process?

If reunification is viewed strictly through the narrow lens of an immediate, overnight constitutional overhaul, political skeptics will quickly brand it a "pipe dream," citing differences in legal systems, tax codes, and allegiance to European capitals. But if reunification is understood as an inevitable choice for long-term survival, the perspective shifts completely.

On an island facing climate vulnerability, supply chain fragilities, and economic pressures, maintaining two competitive, duplicated governance structures seems to me fundamentally unsustainable.

Beyond Symbolism: From Functional Cooperation to True Unity

To move beyond political platitudes, St. Martin must bridge the gap between cultural unity and political action. Just as Germany had to navigate the complex economic alignment of two distinct systems, St. Martin must establish functional integration as the stepping stone to political unity.

Even within the existing constitutional constraints imposed by France and The Netherlands, actionable steps toward structural unity can still be taken. The establishment and celebration of St. Martin Day is, in itself, a prime example of this.

Simple, joint, practical measures taken at the level of the local authorities can serve as the scaffolding for ultimate political integration. They will, in fact, transform St. Martin Day from a day of empty ceremonial parades and speeches into an annual benchmark for real, structural progress.

Conclusion

Can there be unity without reunification? Again, the answer depends entirely on how unity is defined. If unity means nothing more than peaceful neighborliness, shared folklore, and borderless roads where citizens travel freely, then yes — such a superficial unity can survive without political reunification.

But if unity means self-determination, collective resilience, fiscal wisdom, and the full realization of St. Martin nationhood, then unity without reunification is an illusion.

As I have emphasized already, the current status quo of colonial partition and administrative duplication is a luxury the island can no longer afford. Global history - from the reunification of Germany to the structural limits of the European Union - teaches us that shared identity must eventually find expression in unified governance.

So long as St. Martin remains politically divided between two European metropoles, its unity will remain partial and precarious. Realizing the promise of St. Martin Day requires moving beyond ceremonial speeches toward a deliberate, shared destiny — proving that reunification is not a pipe dream, but the necessary evolution of one people on one island who share one destiny.

Happy St. Martin Day!

‍