Better late than never. That is perhaps the most balanced conclusion after reading the two reports published by Extra on 8 September 2026 concerning the motion adopted by the Parliament of Curaçao. Parliament is now demanding that the Government of the Kingdom consult Curaçao before adopting international positions on matters that directly concern our country, our history, our identity and our collective memory.
The motion is justified. It is necessary. It may even become constitutionally important if it leads to a formal consultation procedure among the Netherlands, Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten. But an unavoidable question remains: why did Curaçao wait so long?
On 25 March 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 80/250, concerning the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized chattel enslavement of Africans. The resolution described these historical systems as among the gravest crimes against humanity and called for acknowledgment, education, restitution and reparatory justice.
The vote was clear. A total of 123 countries voted in favour, three voted against and 52 abstained. The Kingdom of the Netherlands was among those that abstained. Curaçao was not consulted before that position was adopted, even though Curaçao is a constituent country of the Kingdom and the resolution concerned a history that has profoundly shaped our population, land, economy, culture and social relationships.
That should immediately have resulted in a formal response from our Government and Parliament.
The first parliamentary motion should have been introduced within days of the vote, not more than five months later. This is not a political accusation against one party or another. It is an observation about institutional responsibility. When an international decision touches the dignity and historical experience of the people of Curaçao, our institutions must respond while the matter is still on the international agenda.
A second opportunity arose during Prime Minister Rob Jetten’s visit to the Caribbean part of the Kingdom from 8 to 14 May 2026. In Curaçao, he met government officials, parliamentarians and representatives of civil society. He also visited Museo Tula, where the subject of slavery, reparatory justice and the Netherlands’ handling of the United Nations resolution was directly addressed.
Jetten acknowledged that the consultation and coordination with the Caribbean countries and Suriname should have been handled much better. He reportedly stated that the process “did not deserve a beauty prize.” That admission created an opening for Curaçao to request an immediate written commitment to a permanent consultation procedure.
That moment was not used with sufficient institutional force. Parliament could have presented a motion to the Dutch prime minister while he was physically present in Curaçao. The Government of Curaçao could have requested a timetable for negotiations. The four countries could have begun drafting an agreement before the issue disappeared from the daily news.
Nevertheless, the present motion deserves serious consideration on its merits.
According to Extra, Parliament wants the countries to establish a mutual arrangement under Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Charter for the Kingdom. Such an arrangement could determine how the Kingdom reaches international positions, what criteria must be applied and when the Caribbean countries must be consulted.
This is important because foreign relations are formally a Kingdom affair under Article 3 of the Charter. Curaçao does not cast a separate vote in the United Nations General Assembly. The Kingdom votes internationally. In practice, however, the Netherlands possesses much greater institutional power in determining that vote.
The issue is therefore not whether Curaçao can independently take over the Kingdom’s foreign affairs. The issue is whether the Kingdom can legitimately speak in Curaçao’s name without first listening to Curaçao when the subject is inseparable from our history and identity.
Consultation should not be ceremonial. Curaçao should not be informed only after a decision has effectively been made. A meaningful procedure must give all four countries timely access to the proposed position, supporting documents and legal arguments. It must provide sufficient time for each country to respond. When agreement cannot be reached, the disagreement must be formally recorded and, where appropriate, communicated internationally.
The motion also calls for Curaçao’s position on the 25 March resolution to be made public and transmitted to the United Nations. That is reasonable. The international record presently shows how the Kingdom voted. It does not automatically show that Curaçao may have held a different position or was excluded from the consultation process.
Parliament also connects the debate to continuing economic inequality, structural poverty, land ownership, discrimination, colorism and generational trauma. These are serious claims that require careful documentation. Historical slavery cannot be used as a simplified explanation for every present social problem. At the same time, it would be equally irresponsible to pretend that centuries of enslavement, colonial government and unequal ownership simply disappeared without leaving structural consequences.
This debate must therefore remain factual. It should not become a competition between historical atrocities. Recognizing the exceptional duration, racial organization and international character of African chattel slavery does not diminish the suffering of Holocaust victims or victims of other crimes against humanity. Each historical crime deserves accurate study and moral recognition.
The same discipline is required when discussing reparations. Reparatory justice is not merely a “bag of money.” It can include archives, historical research, education, restoration of cultural heritage, land investigations, public-health programmes, institutional reform, economic investment and guarantees that the same patterns will not be repeated. Any financial component must be supported by evidence, transparent administration and clearly identified public objectives.
The motion adopted by Parliament is therefore an important beginning, but it is not the conclusion. A motion does not automatically create a binding consultation right. The real test is what happens next.
Will the Government of Curaçao formally approach the governments of the Netherlands, Aruba and Sint Maarten? Will negotiations under Article 38 begin? Will Parliament establish a deadline? Will the resulting arrangement distinguish between being informed, being consulted and giving consent?
Better late than never, certainly. But now that Parliament has finally spoken, Curaçao must ensure that its words are converted into a transparent constitutional procedure. Otherwise, the Kingdom may once again adopt an international position in our name while our own voice remains outside the room.
Tico Vos
Columnist