“Nos ta un reino – we are one Kingdom.”
It is a powerful phrase, and its inclusion in the 2026 Speech from the Throne was clearly intended to emphasize a renewed commitment to cooperation between the Netherlands, Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten. But behind the symbolism lies a development that deserves closer attention in Curaçao.
The Dutch government announced that the four countries will meet this fall for a summit dealing with issues including the economy, economic security, climate and waste management. More importantly, the Speech from the Throne added that from now on, this summit will become an annual tradition.
At first glance, that may appear to be little more than a commitment to meet once a year.
Constitutionally and politically, however, it could become much more significant.
The central question is not whether the countries of the Kingdom should cooperate. They should, and the Charter for the Kingdom explicitly provides for that.
The more important question is this: if an annual summit gradually becomes a place where important policy directions are agreed, who determines what the Kingdom discusses, and who ultimately holds those making the agreements accountable?
The Charter already provides for cooperation
There is nothing constitutionally unusual about regular consultation between the four countries.
Article 36 of the Charter states that the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten shall provide one another with aid and assistance.
Article 37 goes further. It provides that the countries shall consult as much as possible on matters involving the interests of two or more of them. The Charter even allows for special representatives and joint bodies in dealing with such matters.
Article 38 provides another important mechanism: the countries can enter into mutual arrangements.
In other words, the constitutional architecture of the Kingdom does not require the four countries to operate in isolation. Cooperation is built into the system.
An annual summit could therefore be useful. It could provide continuity instead of forcing the countries to wait for a crisis before sitting around the same table. It could identify shared challenges earlier, improve coordination and give the Caribbean countries a more regular opportunity to place their priorities directly before the Dutch government.
But there is an equally important limit.
A summit is not a fifth government
The fact that the four governments meet annually does not automatically transform their summit into a new constitutional institution with independent powers.
That distinction matters.
A political agreement reached at a summit does not simply acquire the same legal status as a Curaçao national ordinance, a Kingdom Act, a general administrative measure for the Kingdom or a formally concluded mutual arrangement.
The Kingdom consists of four countries. It does not consist of one central government that can freely determine domestic policy for all four.
That is particularly important when looking at the subjects already mentioned for the summit.
Economic policy, social and economic security, climate policy and waste management can touch directly on areas for which Curaçao has its own governmental and parliamentary responsibilities.
Cooperation on those subjects may be valuable. But cooperation and decision-making are not necessarily the same thing.
That is where the design of the annual summit becomes important.
Who controls the agenda?
Before the annual meeting becomes an established institution in practice, several basic questions deserve answers.
Who sets the agenda? Can Curaçao independently place issues on it? Do all four governments have equal influence over which subjects are discussed? Can the Netherlands put an issue on the table against the wishes of one or more Caribbean countries? Are decisions made by consensus? And what happens when there is no agreement?
There is also the question of documentation.
Will the summit produce a public declaration? Will agreements be published? Will there be minutes or a list of decisions? Will commitments specify which country is responsible for implementation and how they will be financed?
These may sound like procedural questions, but procedure is particularly important within the Kingdom because of the enormous difference in size and administrative capacity between the Netherlands and the Caribbean countries.
“Equality” at a summit cannot merely mean four flags and four delegations around the same table. If the annual meeting is presented as cooperation among four countries, that equality should also be reflected in agenda-setting and decision-making.
Curaçao Parliament cannot be left outside the process
For Curaçao, there is another constitutional consideration: Parliament.
Under Curaçao’s constitutional system, ministers are accountable to the Curaçao Parliament. Members of Parliament also have a constitutionally protected right to obtain information from ministers so they can exercise their supervisory role.
That becomes increasingly relevant if the annual four-country summit develops from a consultation mechanism into a forum where policy directions are effectively established.
Imagine, for example, that Curaçao agrees at a Kingdom summit to a particular approach to waste processing, energy, economic reform or climate adaptation.
Even if such an agreement is initially political rather than legally binding, it could subsequently influence government policy, spending decisions and legislation in Curaçao.
At that point, Parliament has a legitimate role.
What mandate did the Curaçao government take to the summit? What did it agree to? What commitments were made? What financial consequences follow? Does implementation require legislation? And was Parliament informed before or only after the political agreement had effectively been reached?
Those questions are not arguments against Kingdom cooperation. They are questions about democratic accountability.
Lessons from the Landspakketten
There is also a broader political context that should not be ignored.
Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten have spent recent years implementing reforms through the Landspakketten and other agreements with the Netherlands. Those experiences have repeatedly generated discussions about autonomy, conditions attached to Dutch assistance, ownership of reforms and the balance of power within Kingdom relations.
The new annual summit could offer an opportunity to move away from a relationship dominated by crises and conditional assistance toward one based more consistently on joint strategic planning.
That would be a significant improvement.
But for that to happen, the summit must not evolve into another mechanism through which priorities are established first at Kingdom level and debated in national parliaments afterward.
If the annual meeting is genuinely based on equality, the Caribbean countries should be involved not only in implementing the agenda but also in creating it.
One Kingdom does not mean one country
“Nos ta un reino” is therefore an appropriate starting point, but it should not become the end of the constitutional discussion.
Yes, we are one Kingdom.
But the Charter deliberately created a Kingdom consisting of different countries with their own governments, democratic institutions and autonomous responsibilities.
That distinction is fundamental.
One Kingdom does not mean one country. It does not mean one parliament. And it does not mean that an annual meeting of four governments can gradually assume powers that the constitutional order assigns elsewhere.
There is no reason to assume that this is what the governments intend. But institutions often acquire importance through practice rather than through a single constitutional decision.
A meeting becomes annual. An agenda becomes standardized. Political declarations become commitments. Commitments lead to implementation programs. Budgets are allocated. Officials begin reporting on progress. Before long, something that began as an informal political consultation can become an influential part of government.
That is precisely why the rules should be clear from the beginning.
An opportunity — if equality is built into it
An annual Kingdom summit could be valuable for Curaçao.
The island faces challenges that cannot always be addressed effectively in isolation. Climate change, regional security, migration, energy, food security, economic resilience and organized crime all cross borders. The Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten also possess expertise and resources that can be more effective when combined.
Regular high-level political dialogue could therefore strengthen the Kingdom.
But the success of the summit should not be measured simply by the fact that four prime ministers meet every year.
It should be measured by whether the four countries genuinely shape the agenda together, whether agreements respect their constitutional responsibilities, whether the results are transparent and whether their respective parliaments can properly scrutinize what their governments have agreed.
“Nos ta un reino” can be a strong expression of solidarity.
As this summit becomes an annual tradition, however, Curaçao should pay attention not only to who sits at the table.
The more important questions are who decides what is placed on that table, what is agreed once everyone is seated — and who must answer to Parliament and the public afterward.