Palau Leaders Clash Over Talks on Third-Country Nationals Agreement

By: L.N. Reklai

KOROR, Palau — A leadership meeting convened by President Surangel Whipps Jr. yesterday, January 22, 2026, to discuss Palau’s agreement to accept third-country nationals under a memorandum of understanding with the United States went forward this week without the participation of the Senate of the 12th Olbiil Era Kelulau and the Council of Chiefs, highlighting a widening dispute over how high-level national consultations should be conducted.

While the president has framed the meeting as part of a broader “whole-of-nation” approach that also touched on illegal drugs, documents and meeting transcripts show that the central focus of the gathering was the third-country nationals agreement and details of the MOU signed with the United States. Discussion of drugs centered largely on what support the U.S. has pledged to provide Palau’s law enforcement agencies, rather than serving as the primary subject of the meeting.

The absence of senators and members of Rubekul Belau has fueled competing narratives over who is avoiding engagement and whether the meeting itself met the definition of a “leadership meeting.”

In a statement from the Office of the President, Whipps criticized the Senate and the Council of Chiefs for declining to attend, saying it was “not the first time” they had refused to participate in leadership discussions. He framed the open format — which included Mechesil Belau, governors’ and speakers’ associations, and other community representatives — as necessary for transparency on issues affecting the nation.

“Some in national leadership are choosing a closed room over an open conversation,” Whipps said, arguing that broader inclusion is essential when decisions have national and social consequences.

The Senate and the Council of Chiefs, however, say their nonattendance reflects a procedural disagreement, not a rejection of dialogue.

In a formal letter to the president, Rubekul Belau said it “respectfully declines” to attend the open forum, explaining that it believes initial discussions on matters such as constitutional authority, national policy and international agreements should first take place in a closed leadership meeting involving the president, the OEK, Rubekul Belau and state elected leaders.

The council emphasized that it supports wider public engagement — but only after leadership institutions have met to clarify roles and positions.

The Senate, as quoted in the president’s statement, echoed that view, calling for a focused discussion “among leadership acting in their official capacity,” and saying an open forum is not an appropriate setting for candid deliberations on governance and legislative implications of the MOU.

From the president’s perspective, the refusal to attend undermines progress. In remarks captured in the meeting transcript, Whipps said Senate leaders had previously requested a leadership meeting and the formation of a working group, yet did not attend when a meeting was convened.

“They ask for a meeting, and now that we are having a meeting, they don’t show up,” he said, questioning how long the country should wait to move forward on decisions related to third-country nationals.

That assertion highlights the core dispute: the meeting requested by the Senate and Rubekul Belau was defined as a closed institutional consultation, while the meeting convened by the president was structured as an open forum that included civil society and community groups.

During the meeting, delegate Ngirameketii raised concerns about the limited participation of senators and chiefs and questioned whether sufficient consultation had occurred before decisions were made.

“I regret that, despite all these discussions, we have not seemed to come to an agreement,” Ngirameketii said, asking whether the formation of a working group had proceeded without full consensus from leadership bodies.

The disagreement has also been marked by increasingly sharp rhetoric. Whipps said that some senators and members of Rubekul Belau “just want to oppose every issue,” a claim that shifts the debate from process to motive.

The chiefs’ correspondence, by contrast, avoids questioning intent and consistently frames their position as a matter of constitutional process and sequencing, not obstruction.

While illegal drugs were referenced during the meeting, largely in connection with U.S. commitments to support Palau’s law enforcement, the central unresolved issue remains the process for leadership consultation on the third-country nationals agreement and the scope of participation at the earliest stages.

As of this week, no alternative meeting format or date acceptable to all parties has been announced, leaving unresolved not only questions about the MOU itself, the pending legislation amending labor laws and calling for a national referendum, but also how Palau’s leaders engage one another on consequential national decisions.