Reuters, April 30, 2025
Richard N. Salvador
Honolulu, Hawaii
Pete McKenzie and Hollie Adams’s article “U.S., China battle for control of strategic Pacific island” was published by Reuters on April 29, 2025. It was republished in my city’s daily newspaper, “Honolulu Star-Advertiser,” www.staradvertiser.com, on April 30, 2025.
The article brings to light several critical issues that deserve closer scrutiny. I aim to raise awareness about some of the most pressing concerns, beginning with the issue of deep and troubling conflicts of interest. Others merit attention as well. In future writings, I hope to address the growing US militarization in the western Pacific. This one address what I consider a serious form of corruption that the president of Palau is engaging in at the moment.
In a region where military threats are virtually nonexistent, the rapid expansion of U.S. military construction raises serious questions, not only about strategic priorities but about the integrity of the political process.
Consider the current surge in U.S. tariffs under the Trump-led policy direction, particularly against China and other nations. Despite the aggressive framing, there is no substantial evidence of an imminent military threat posed by China, aside from the persistent rhetoric of militarization and hostility emanating from the United States. Over the past four decades, China has not initiated a military invasion of another country. In stark contrast, the United States has engaged in over 250 military interventions since 1991 alone. According to analyses published in the Foreign Affairs journal by the Council on Foreign Relations, much of the so-called “China threat” is rhetorical in nature—deployed strategically by U.S. policymakers to obscure underlying domestic economic vulnerabilities and declining global influence.
In this context, it is deeply troubling that President Surangel Whipps, Jr., an elected official entrusted with safeguarding the public interest, appears to benefit personally through his family-owned company, which has received near-exclusive access to lucrative U.S. military construction contracts.
The exclusive awarding of construction contracts raises immediate concerns about transparency, fairness, and corruption. It suggests a troubling overlap between political power and private gain, particularly if there is no competitive bidding or independent oversight involved. This arrangement raises serious concerns about deep conflict of interest. When public resources, especially those tied to foreign military expansion, are directed into private enterprises without demonstrable necessity or transparent oversight, the distinction between public service and private enrichment becomes dangerously blurred.
The article reveals also that the Whipps family company has become a primary private recipient of lucrative contracts related to U.S. military infrastructure projects, all valued at $6 million. This is concerning due to the following factors:
1) The absence of a credible and imminent military threat to Palau that would justify the scale and nature of these developments;
2) The use of Palauan territory for foreign offensive military infrastructure potentially undermining the nation’s longstanding anti-nuclear, anti-militarism stance and sovereignty;
3) The exclusive financial benefit derived by a company linked to the sitting President, with no publicly disclosed competitive bidding process.
Given these concerns, I believe this matter may violate multiple provisions of the Palau National Code and Constitution, including legal and Constitutional grounds for investigation:
1) Title 33, Chapter 6 – Code of Ethics:
o § 604: Prohibits government officials from using their position to secure contracts or advantages for themselves or others.
o § 605: Requires public officials to disclose conflicts of interest and to recuse themselves from related decisions.
o § 606: Prohibits public officials from holding financial interests in businesses directly affected by their official duties.
2) Palau Constitution:
o Article II, Section 3: Requires that significant defense and foreign military arrangements receive two-thirds approval from the Olbiil Era Kelulau and be ratified by national referendum.
o Article XII, Section 1: Declares that all individuals are equal under the law and entitled to equal protection—precluding favoritism based on political status.
This is more than a matter of optics. It reflects a structural vulnerability in how decisions are made, how contracts are awarded, and how accountability is enforced. Whether or not laws have been technically violated, the ethical breach is clear: public office must not be used for private enrichment.
This is not merely a matter of poor judgment. It is a structural issue that undermines democratic governance and erodes public trust. Military installations funded by foreign powers should never become a backdoor for enriching those in office. When leaders profit from peace by preparing for war that is unlikely to come, we must ask: who truly benefits?
The public deserves full disclosure. Investigative journalism and civic accountability must step in where official oversight may fail. We owe it to our communities to insist that public service be driven by service—not self-interest.
In the absence of a legitimate military threat, these developments demand urgent scrutiny. At stake is not only public trust, but the principle that public service should serve the people—not profit the powerful.
We must call on independent oversight bodies, investigative journalists, and community advocates to demand answers. Transparency, accountability, and fairness must prevail over secrecy, self-dealing, and unchecked influence.