Palau’s Foreign Policy vis a vis Israel
February 3, 2007
(Writer’s Note: I wrote this piece in my capacity as a private citizen out of genuine concern for our peoples’ safety abroad and security at home, given the every changing tactics of religious extremists and how they employ fear on those who are against them).
Palau should re-evaluate its foreign policy concerning the Middle East. In particular, I am referring to Palau’s unquestionable support for the State of Israel. Of the 192 members of the United Nations, only Palau, the United States, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia vote unstintingly in support of Israel on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, the issue of the Palestinian homeland is still a contentious one. The other members of the Pacific Island Forum take a neutral position or vote with the majority when it comes to resolutions on the Palestinian question. Palau consistently votes in the minority – Palau, RMI, FSM, USA, and Israel.
The question for Palauans is what does Palau get from this support for Israel? Palau has recently failed in its bid for a seat on UNESCO. As seats in UNESCO are elected, it seems likely that Palau’s voting record on this important issue may be having an adverse effect on the ability of Palau to increase its international profile on important international bodies. Al Jazeera, the premier news company serving the Islamic world, has recently turned its attention to Palau. Al Jazeera has proven influential in forming popular opinion in Asia and the Middle East. And the Islamic is now wondering why Palau voted in the General Assembly against a resolution to appropriate money to the World Health Organization for the purpose of helping the Palestinian refugees. Late last year, Palau voted against a resolution to give the Palestinians a homeland.
These actions of Palau, I’m worried, will trickle down to the Al Qaida strategy room. We may think that Palau is so far removed from the reaches of terrorists, but we don’t need to look far to see what the enemies of the Coalition of the Willing can do – the 2002 and 2005 Bali attacks by the Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayaff in southern Philippines. We have to note that Palau has over 1,000 expats from South Asia region including Indonesian fishermen. You decide whether this is “clear and present danger.”
Palau should be more discerning in its support for Israel. The Israeli people have recently shown willingness towards compromise with the election of a centrist party, Kadima. Hopefully, this opportunity will not be wasted and Israel and Israelis will make a continued effort toward achieving peace. The Palauan government must be clear that Palau is not ending its support of Israel, but that it can no longer take Palauan support for granted merely because the United States supports Israel. The Palauan government must applaud good behavior and condemn bad behavior, regardless of which party commits it.
The Palauan government must take its position on moral grounds. Palau is a former Trust Territory and a colony. Like the Palestinian people, we can empathize with the plight of a people who are not in control of their land and territorial affairs.
At the same time, Palau must take care not to support the Palestinian position without question or scrutiny. A policy based on morality must pay close attention to action, rather than words or nationality. The Government of Palau should send a new message that the Palauan people are committed to peace all over the world as long as it is achieved honestly and meaningfully. It is important that Palau be involved and engaged, at least intellectually, in world affairs. We cannot expect others to care about the issues Palau cares about – global warming, the Micronesian Challenge or the Deep-Sea Bottom Trawling Moratorium – if the Palauan people do not take the time to form our own foreign policy based on Palauan values.
By Marvin Ngirutang
February 3, 2007 at 11:34 am
Marvin,
Ke kmal mesulang e Mr. Ngirutang el mla ochotii tial meral orechudel tekoi. Ng orechudel leng ngklel a Belau ma singio era chad er Belau a sokol metamall era chelsel a beluu le chad a lak bod ungil mengkar a omerelled ra United Nations.
Ke mla masechii tial teletael el kirel a Israel ma Palestine, eng meral tekoi aikal melokoi. Kungil medengei le kemlar sel blai. Ngii dil chad a sebechal el momes a babier ra UN e moumerang ra kau.
E lmuut el ngarngii a bebil. Te ngarngii ar imerikel mla tuobed el oker el kmo tirkal chad era Belau te kelsakl? Te sibil a USA? Kede telou ra rebeluu el dirkak el kongei ra Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Ma dirrek a International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). Ked mengetmokl a ungil tekoi el kirel a daob ma ulekerreuil a ngikel engdi ked mo ngesonges sel ngodech a blekerdeled el mo bedul a rechad el merael.
Meng soal metemall a chised, el uai a lak de meral beluu me kid el chad ra Belau a kora de cheremel a merikel el monkii. Aleko ngii dil me uan dala e ked mora choderuchel.
Kid el chad ra beluu a medengei el kmo ng diak de uasei. Engdi ngdiak dodengei el kmo ngara ngii ar olab a ngkled e meruul aikel hantai ra klungiolel a beluad e hantai ra ngara rengud el chad ra belau.
Ngdiak a klungiolel a leborengii a klautelelchakl and the usual cycle of blame, denial and no change.
Mei medolengit er tirkel chad ra amt el loungerachel er tial ureor mel sumecheklii ra di mereched el taem.
The foreign policy making power of the Republic of Palau rests in the capable hands of the Palauan people. Let’s exercise it. Kid a chad ra meral beluu e medengei a tekoi. E meduch. Me ngara ked e mengiil er ngii?
February 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Marvin,
Security of Palau should be a priority. But ngmo bedul ker a Belau if it is not voting with USA. Who gives most financial grants and assistances to Palau? Is it UN, EU, Middle East, China, Taiwan? Can Palau survive financially and economically on its own feet? Of course we are concern about safety of Palau, citizens, and residents but to think that we should change the way we vote because of the threat that possibly coming from Al Qaida, is beyond me. Unless we can come up with solution for Palau to be truly independent and on its own feet, then I believe that Palau should vote the way it wants to but for now, Palau should lean toward USA. I would rather have a good relationship with a nation that cares for me than a nation who do not know that I exist.
February 4, 2007 at 11:20 am
To put this matter of financial aid in perspective, the US government through the US Agency for International Development provides grants and loans to many countries around the world. The amounts are exponentially greater than the funding which the US provides Palau even when discounting the loan amounts. These figures are readily available online.
There is no expectation on the part of the US government that the recipeints, sovereign nations that they are, should, therefore, vote with the US on any or all United Nations resolutions. Indeed, these sovereign nations accept and use this funding to improve the health of their people or for whatever public projects the funds were intended, without prostituting their independence, their voice, or their conscience.
The American people are traditionally generous and righteous. We dis ourselves and their generosity and righteousness when imagine we that we must surrender our self-respect for financial and economic security. It is not necessary. We can show our gratitude by becoming outstanding world citizens, of which we are entirely capable.
Whether Al Qaida is a threat to Palau or not is a separate issue. In any case, it is a cause for concern that Palau’s voting record at the UN is coming back to bite us in the behind.
Undoubtedly, we have lost a tremendous opportunity to serve on UNESCO, as Marvin has reported. It would have been Palau’s chance to demonstrate that while ours is a small nation with few people we have the capacity to serve the greater humanity beyond our reefs. We are a proud people and we aspire to do good.
This is an important issue and I’m thrilled that we are engaged and are able to discuss its various implications.
February 6, 2007 at 3:36 am
Alii E Yvonne,
FSM and RMI courted the US by voting with it 100% in the hopes that the USA will be merciful when both countries negotiate for new Compacts. That did not work. The US entered the negotations with both countries with two carrots and a stick. The end was humiliating for both FSM and RMI. Today any gov’t monies to be expended in both these island countries have to be approved by a panel of 5 people who are based in Honolulu. You call that independence?
Corey gave a fantastic explanation of how Palau can vote independently and still enjoy the good relations with the USA.
Palau needs to work hard to earn the respect of the international community. Samoa is a developing island country, like Palau, and it commands the respect of the international community.
February 17, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Marvin,
Negotiations on new compact agreement for those two islands were made way before the UN voting, thus, it has no impact. So what if monies will require approval of 5 people. Isn’t that what is being done with the rest of DOI funds? You said that Palau needs to work hard to earn the respect of the international community – I would say lets begin by giving ourselves respect before we expect international community to respect us.
February 17, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Alii Yvonne,
While at the UN I asked my colleagues at the RMI and FSM Missions on why they vote 100% with the US. This was before their Compacts negotiations in 2000-2002. They told me that they were “mengeluch” the US so that the US can be generous in their next financial packages to the two countries.
The UN General Assembly functions like the OEK. They have to vote on resolutions and bills to run this “government” of the world. And there are always those controversial resolutions – condemnations, sanctions, $ appropriations, voting country candidates to fill UN vacancies, sending PeaceKeeping troops, etc. And as always, FSM and RMI vote with the US 94.9% of the time. This has been happening since these two countries became independent and member of the UN in 1986. But few years before the end of their first compacts, they changed their voting percentage to 99.9%. hoping that the US would notice this.
As for DOI funds and Palau, monies earmarked from the COFA are wired to Finance with no strings attached. These are payments for US military rights over Palau. This was the same arrangement for FSM and RMI when they began their Free Association with the US in 1986.
But time around, yes they have money earmarked for specific program under the new Compacts, but every requests to use these funds, have to be “approved” first by this new Committee in Honolulu – red tapes and an insult to these countries integrity if you ask any leaders of the FSM or RMi like Senator Peter Christian of FSM.
Marv
February 17, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Alii Yvonne,
regarding “international respect” I want our foreign policy to shift to the middle ground – putting honor and a human face with the votes Palau casts in the international plane. Palau will not achieve its goals in the UN (deep sea bottom trolling, etc) if it can’t get the support of the G77 and China when it continues to behave as it does in the international fora in relations to its voting.
You can see the voting records in the UN website, http://www.un.org or the US State Dept.
Marv
September 4, 2008 at 2:32 am
For religious purposes, I applaud Palau for siding with Israel.
If my granfather, Teliu, who was a deacon from the Evangelical Church in Palau and who passed away in the late 60’s, was still on earth with us he will second the motion. He will be very proud of Palau’s effort for Israel.
Growing up in the Teliu households, we studied and learned the old testament. Our faith in God was built as we learn the history, and the accounts of Israel. With this background, I am very honored and blessed to know that as a recognized nation in the world, we have chosen vote in favor of Israel.
My grandfather also said that the end of the world will come when Israel will run for cover because the whole world will come against it. As a nation, Palau is truly doing its part in peace keeping in the world by siding with Israel.
October 17, 2009 at 11:21 am
I’m a “johnny-come-lately” in this article; however I do find it important and interesting and I’m compelled to put in my two cents. Thank you Marvin for your critique and concern on this issue.
You all raise sound arguments; however, I find the last comment troublesome, especially with the last sentence: “As a nation, Palau is truly doing its part in peace keeping in the world by siding with Israel.” The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such a pressing issue of our time and much discerning and critical analysis is needed in order for one to understand the violence and oppression involved. To simply justify Israel’s occupation with the Old Testament is naive for lack of a better word. The danger I see here is for other readers to see this kind of reasoning and adopt it without analyzing the issue.
I am a Roman Catholic and like all other Christians, the Bible is central to my faith. Therefore, I am a bit offended when it is used to justify the oppression and violence that Israel partakes in. Does God condone oppressing human beings and striping whatever dignity is left in them? I certainly don’t think my God allows such things. Moreover, I certainly do not applaud my country for allowing such apartheid. It is anything but “doing its part in peace keeping.” Siding with Israel in the conflict should never be glorified but rather assessed carefully in respect to both policy and religious ideologies.