[Richard Salvador response to Mr. Surangel Whipps’ UNGA statement]
September 25, 2025
What profound hypocrisy and mendacity Palau displays at the United Nations General Assembly! It professes lofty ideals about war and peace while endorsing the escalating American militarization of the western Pacific, alongside its deceptive and dishonest stance at the UN on the Palestinian question amid the ongoing Israeli violence in Gaza.
While Palau rightly recalls the devastation of war and upholds the values of peace, dignity, and dialogue, its decision to invite increased US militarization undermines that vision. The United Nations was founded on the principle that it serves all nations, regardless of size, Mr. Surangel proclaims, a principle irreconcilable with allowing a powerful external force to introduce conflict and strategic interests into Palau’s sovereign space. Accepting a permanent or expanded US military presence risks turning Palau into a pawn in broader geopolitical tensions, especially amid rising US-China rivalry.
To deny this reality is difficult to comprehend. Just two weeks ago, Palau joined nine other countries, including the United States and Israel, in voting against a UN resolution aimed at ending the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and supporting the establishment of a Palestinian State. This position raises serious questions about Palau’s consistency and transparency on the Palestinian issue, particularly given the ongoing violence in Gaza. Palau’s vote contradicts the peace and justice values it frequently professes, exposing a troubling disconnect in its UN approach.
Moreover, in early May 2025, Palau unexpectedly withdrew registration and its flag from the vessel Conscience, which had flown Palau’s flag for a year. Just twenty-four hours later, the vessel, carrying humanitarian supplies as part of a Flotilla of Peace mission to Gaza, was attacked by Israeli drones in international waters near Malta. The Palau Minister of Foreign Affairs subsequently made misleading statements to international media about the incident, further highlighting Palau’s complicity in the broader context of ongoing violence against Palestinians. This contradicts the principles of peace and justice Palau publicly claims, underscoring profound hypocrisy.
Instead of fostering genuine peace through diplomacy and respect for international law, Palau’s decisions may increase insecurity by making the islands a potential target for military conflict, violating the principle of peaceful dispute resolution. History reminds us that militarization often brings suffering, environmental damage, and erosion of indigenous rights, issues already evident in Palau amid US military expansion, which impacts local communities and environments without full transparency or consent.
A true commitment to peace would involve resisting involvement in superpower conflicts and strengthening Palau’s sovereignty and environmental stewardship, rather than worsening instability under the pretext of security.
Palau’s contradictory stance reveals selective application of principles: embracing peace rhetoric while aligning with global powers opposing Palestinian self-determination and a peaceful resolution to longstanding injustice and violence. Denying Palestinian statehood at a moment when the international community calls for concrete, timely steps to peace, and condemns violence on all sides, undermines Palau’s credibility as a defender of justice and human dignity.
Palau’s alignment with the US and Israel in opposing one of the broadest international endorsements for Palestinian sovereignty, despite overwhelming global support for it, raises serious questions about the independence of its foreign policy and the sincerity of its invocation of “peace and respect.” True peace, just, lasting, and stable, requires equal recognition of all peoples’ rights to statehood and security, not the perpetuation of double standards and selective diplomacy.
The tension between Palau’s stated ideals and its actions at the UN underscores a problematic gap between its peace rhetoric and its political alliances, spotlighting a clear contradiction in its international stance.