Palau, a nation known for its beauty and small population of approximately 18,000, is currently weighing a significant proposal from the United States. Palau is located about 2,200 kilometers (1,400 miles) north of Australia. It maintains a close historic relationship with the United States through a “Compact of Free Association” (COFA). This compact returns billions in US aid to Palau in exchange for allowing American troops to operate within its territory. As Palau’s government consults with its Council of Chiefs on this new proposal, the implications for the nation’s infrastructure and legal systems are drawing considerable scrutiny.
The US proposal would make Palau an asylum destination for “third country nationals.” These people are looking for protection from the real danger they face if forced to return to their countries of origin. Such an ambitious initiative would benefit from US leadership and action on the ground to send asylum seekers to Palau, but delay talks on operationalizing resettlement. While it’s not perfect, the deal offers enormous potential benefits. Experts caution that Palau lacks both the infrastructure and the legal frameworks to manage potentially complex immigration cases.
Background on Palau’s Relationship with the US
Palau achieved independence from the United States in 1994 but maintains close relations under the COFA pact. This deal provides critical financial assistance to Palau. It allows the country to maintain its economic and military leverage, particularly providing the US military unimpeded access to its territorial waters. The administration’s proposal to take in asylum seekers strengthens this dangerous partnership.
In Palau, President Surangel Whipps Jr. has begun removing public consultations with Palau’s Council of Chiefs on the suggested arrangement. Whipps doubled down, explaining that any proposed actions were in line with Palau’s constitutional and legal framework. He then appealed, “Palau, would you please accept our request? If you accept, we can then talk on the details of how it will work.”
The idea of hosting asylum seekers is not completely foreign to Palau. But advocates argue that the country cannot afford to turn down the US proposal. Its heavy dependence on American assistance does not allow for this kind of refusal. As Mr. Sousa-Santos noted, “Palau is not exactly in a position to reject.” Such sentiment belies worries about the excessive, and at times, detrimental control by the United States over Palauan budget and policymaking.
Implications of Accepting Asylum Seekers
The consequential draft agreement under consideration poses serious questions as to Palau’s capacity to handle a sudden surge of asylum seekers. Danielle Watson, an associate professor at the Queensland University of Technology’s School of Justice, says that presents a major problem. At the moment, Palau has no overall legal structure for deciding if a person is a refugee. She noted that Palau does not have an established legal framework for assessing refugee status. This gap would result in increased difficulty when implementing any policies and create legal gray areas.
The impact this could have on Palau’s already-stretched resources is hard to discount. Watson cautioned that in the absence of assured US backing, the tiny nation may find itself under the overwhelming weight of resources. Absorbing asylum seekers would put a heavy burden on Palau’s already overextended social services and public infrastructure,’ she further claimed.
Palau’s Island Times newspaper publisher Leilani Reklai said her alarm about the proposal grew as she recalled a similar experience, which she shared. “That experience was really terrible,” she said. There’s been significant public pushback against the idea, largely due to misinformation. This indicates a trend of fear among the public about the consequences of admitting asylum seekers.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Palau’s constitution, modeled on that of the U.S., forbids “torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” That poses profound moral questions, not only about how the nation would adjudicate asylum claims but how it would welcome people fleeing to safety. Though President Whipps promises that everything they do will reflect constitutional values, experts are warning of the dangers that lurk.
Jose Sousa-Santos took issue with the euphemization of “people seeking protection.” He noted that it sometimes applies to both unauthorized migrants and legitimate asylum seekers. He worried that if the complexities were suited for Palau’s current legal structure.
In addition, as talks continue, there is still concern about how the Trump administration might change or renege on any deal reached with Palau. Sousa-Santos still lamented that the Trump administration has offered no indication of permanence. He cautioned that any deal reached between Palau, its Council of Chiefs and the United States could be rescinded just like that at the administration’s whim, a very scary prospect.
