Letter questions James Finies NKBB to King Willem Alexander June 2017

s Highness Majesty King Willem Alexander p/a Kabinet Der Koning Postbus 20016 2500 EA Den Haag Nederland

Bonaire, June 9, 2017

His Highness,

On September 16 , 2013 , during your inaugural visit as our new King to the Caribbean islands of your Kingdom, I , Serrio James Finies, had a personal meeting with you and your Minister of Kingdom Relations Mr. Plasterk. On this historic moment, I on behalf of the people who supported our foundation Nos Kier Boneiru Bek (We want Bonaire back) fight for our United Nations mandated right to a “full measure of self-government” pursuant to article 73 of the UN Charter, I petitioned your Majesty to do your utmost in your power and influence to first stop the politicians and government of Holland from bullying, and intimidating our local politicians and from famishing our peoples when we started the discussion to initiate the process of self-governance and political equality. Secondly, I petitioned your Majesty because the current constitutional status was imposed on our peoples without a referendum to decide whether or not we agree to this new status. This discussion was witnessed by the Kingdom representation Mr Stolte, the governor of Bonaire, Mrs. Emerencia where Your Royal Highness pledged to me and the people of Bonaire that Your Highness will cooperate to give the people of Bonaire their “full measure of self-government” and to continue together working on the healing and reconciliation process , building together a unified and prosperous Kingdom.
Your highness’ promise and pledge was confirmed in writing by your Minister Mr Plasterk in an official letter reference nr# 2014-0000012853 dated January 8, 2014 where was stated that ……“ the people of Bonaire have the right to let their voices be heard and that all acquired and inherited rights are indivisible and respected in their totality by the Cabinet”
As your highness is aware, I personally sacrificed 222 days of continuous day and night vigil protest at our government building till this referendum was held by the government. The peoples of Bonaire rejected this current status in a decisive indisputable No- vote of 65.55% in the December 18, 2015 referendum.
However the Dutch government is not respecting this democratic decision and voice of our peoples and have made the first reading in October of 2016 and now have on the agenda for the new to be formed government the second and definitive reading to annex and anchor Bonaire and its peoples in the Dutch constitution. Meanwhile since this unlawful new status came into effect on October 10, 2010 and the new open immigration policy our population almost doubled mostly with Dutch Europeans, and if this is not halted immediately we will soon become a minority, direction to be assimilated and exterminated as the Bonerian peoples by substitution.
With this letter I address myself on behalf of the people of Bonaire to you our King and as Head of the State of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the knowledge and comfort of your pledge to me and the Bonerian peoples on the 16th November 2013.
We take great comfort in the knowledge and assurance that the Government of the Netherlands holds the law in high esteem. Indeed, the International Court of Justice is seated in the Netherlands. The rule of law guarantees justice, and assures peace and tranquility in the realm. The rule of law is the highest expression of the Dutch spirit of fair play and equity.
Because of this we have some more questions that we wish to address to your Highness which we wish to have these answered within seven (7) days because of the urgency and wrongfully intentions of the Government of the Netherlands to annex and anchor us in the Dutch constitution against the will of the Bonerian peoples.

Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that the “United Nations Charter is the paramount instrument of international law?”

Comment:
We know that the Government of the Netherlands holds the UN in high esteem. This is witnessed by it seeking a seat in the Security Council. The governments of the various islands in the Kingdom accompanied the Government of the Netherlands on its mission to the UN to offer support to the Government of the Netherlands in its quest for a seat in the Security Council.
Question:
Will the Government of the Netherlands “fulfill faithfully its obligations under the UN Charter?

Comment:
UN Resolution 747 (VIII) of November 27, 1953 states:
Expresses to the Government of the Netherlands it confidence that, as a result of the negotiations a new status will be attained by the Netherlands Antilles and Suriname representing a full measure of selfgovernment in fulfillment of the objectives set forth in the Chapter XI of the Charter.
Questions:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that “a full measure of self-government” is the objective of the Chapter XI?

Comment:
The “Hoge Raad” (ECLI:NL;HR 2008: BD 6568, 21-10-2008) considered the following:
Het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties c.a.
Hoofdstuk VII van het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties vormt blijkens Resolutie 955 (1994) mede grondslag voor de instelling van het Rwanda-tribunaal, hetgeen het gewicht van dat orgaan en de dominante verplichtingen van staten om aan het Handvest te voldoen, onderstreept. (r.o. 23)
Question:
What does the Government of the Netherlands understand under “een dominante verplichting?”
Is fulfilling the objectives of Chapter XI of the UN Charter a “dominante verplichting” of the Government of the Netherlands?”
If “a full measure of self-government” is an objective of the Chapter XI is it also an objective of the Charter?
Does this create for the Government of the Netherlands the obligation to “fulfill the objective of the Charter?”
Does this obligation create the corresponding right to a “full measure of self-government?”
Does this obligation fall within the scope of Article 103 of the UN Charter?

Comment:
We are aware that Chapter XI (Article 73) also contains the principle that “the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount…”
Question:
Does recognition of this principle create the obligation under the Charter to put the interest of the inhabitants paramount?
Does this obligation fall within the scope of the obligations mentioned in article 103 of the Charter?

Comment:
Article 6 of the UN Charter states:
A member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Question:
If it can be shown that a member State of the UN persistently violates the principle that “the interest of the inhabitants are paramount” should that State be expelled from the UN under article 6 of the Charter?

Comment:
Resolution 945 (X) of December 15, 1955 contains amendments by Uruguay and India to the effect that the Netherlands Antilles did not obtain a “full measure of self-government”
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that this resolution confirms the position of the United Nations General Assembly?
Question:
What concrete steps should the government of the Netherlands undertake to ensure that it complies with the rights of the islands to a “full measure of self-government?”

Comment:
From the debates at the UN we know exactly which articles were deemed to be impeding the “full measure of self-government” . They were, the position of governor, articles 43, 44, 50 and 51 of the Kingdom Charter.
Question:
Will the Government of the Netherlands comply with its obligation to ensure “a full measure of selfgovernment” and declare these articles in conflict with its obligations under article 103 of the Charter?
Question:
If the Government of the Netherlands does not declare these articles in conflict with its obligations under the Charter can it explain why?
Does the government of the Netherlands agree that articles 73 a to d are still applicable?

Comment:
UN Resolution 742 (VIII) of November 27, 1953 sub. 6 states:
Considers that the manner in which Territories referred to in Chapter XI of the Charter can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence, although it is recognized that self-government can also be achieved by association with another State or group of States if this is done freely and on the basis of absolute equality.
Question:
Does this create for the Government of the Netherlands the obligation to associate, integrate or adopt any other form of association, on the basis of absolute equality?
Question:
Does this obligation fall within the scope of article 103?
Question:
Does the government of the Netherlands agree that any law that conflicts with the obligations listed below, is “without legal effect or force” as article 103 states “obligations under the Charter shall prevail.”
a. The obligation fulfil the objective of the Chapter XI: full measure of self-government
b. The obligation to place interest of inhabitants paramount
c. The obligation to associate on the basis of absolute equality
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that any attempt to act in conflict with the abovementioned obligations should never, under any conditions, be contemplated, much less undertaken, by any law abiding member of the United Nations?
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that obligations under the Charter are “jus cogens,” a body of rules from which no derogation is possible?
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that all articles in “Het Statuut” which are in conflict with the following obligations under the Charter:
a. A full measure of self-government
b. The principle that the interest of the inhabitants are paramount
c. Absolute equality
Fall within the scope of Article 103?
Question: Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that the legal force of Article 103 of the UN Charter “covers not only its member states, but also “international and regional organizations, private contracts, licenses and permits.1? ”
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree with the following statement?
1
Arnold Pronto and Michael Wood, The International Law Commission 1999-2000, IV (OUP 2010) 756: See eg UNSC Res 748 (31 March 1992) UN Doc S/Res/748; UNSC Res 1267 (15 October 1999) UN Doc/RES/1267.
“The fact that domestic law cannot be invoked so as to justify a non-observance of an obligation of international law surely rules out the possibility that an arrangement contracted under domestic law could prevail over international law”
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree with the following statement?
…article 103 applies to all sorts of contractual rights and obligations, irrespective of their source, including unilaterally obtained obligations. There are good reasons for such a perspective. Most importantly, it would completely defeat the object and purpose of Article 103 if States could avoid its effect by subjecting their agreements to a domestic legal system….
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that “Het Statuut” falls within the scope of article 103 of the UN Charter?
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree with the International Law Commission that “Charter” is also used to signify “Treaty?”
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that by stating “The Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands” it declares to the world community that “Het Statuut” is a treaty?
Question:
If the Government of the Netherlands is of the opinion that “Het Statuut” is not a treaty, why declare to the world community that it is a “Charter” knowing full well that “Charter” means “Treaty”?
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that under the obligation that” the interests of the inhabitants are paramount”, their interests are expressed by their representative bodies?
Question:
Does the Government agree that under the obligation of absolute equality there cannot exits any form of supervision or hierarchy?
Question:
Does the Government of the Netherlands agree that even if parties were to agree to such supervision, such an agreement itself would be in conflict with the “obligation to associate on the basis of absolute equality”, thereby triggering the provisions of Article 103 and rendering any such attempt to “contractout” of Charter obligations unenforceable?