KOROR, Palau — A proposal from the United States to relocate asylum seekers to Palau has been firmly rejected by Palau’s National Congress and the Council of Chiefs, with leaders calling it “dead on arrival.”
The proposal, presented to Palauan leadership on July 18 by President Surangel Whipps Jr. and U.S. Ambassador Joel Ehrendreich, sought Palau’s agreement to temporarily host so-called “third-country nationals”—individuals who are seeking asylum in the United States but cannot be returned to their country of origin.
However, the plan met swift opposition. On July 19, the leaders of both houses of the Olbiil Era Kelulau (OEK), Senate President Hokkons Baules and House Speaker Gibson Kanai, sent a joint letter to President Whipps advising him not to proceed.
“We strongly advise against proceeding further on this matter,” the letter stated, adding that while Palau is a strong U.S. ally, “we cannot afford to overpromise or commit to something we cannot fulfill.”
The Council of Chiefs, which advises the president and includes traditional leaders from Palau’s 16 states, echoed the congressional stance. In their formal response, the chiefs urged President Whipps not to sign the agreement, emphasizing the weight of such a decision on a small island nation.
“Our position has not been an easy one to reach because the request comes to us from our number one ally, the U.S.,” the council wrote. “We are certain, however, that our best friend understands our precarious and fragile situation as a tiny island nation seeking to exist in this complex world.”
Palau currently lacks a legal framework to accommodate asylum seekers or refugees, and any agreement could require approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress. The country is also not a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, further complicating any attempt to take on such a role.
Given the strong and immediate opposition from both the legislature and the Council of Chiefs, the likelihood of the U.S. proposal advancing appears slim. As one lawmaker described it, the plan is effectively “doa”—dead on arrival.