Palauans Can Decide Themselves Between US And China

And through the defense agreements, the Americans are giving up some of their own“sovereignty” via the obligation to defend Palau (and Japan and others), including to sacrifice American lives, should it be necessary.

As long as the world is populated by humans, there will be bad, dangerous regimes that want to control, dominate and take what belongs to others. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is one such country – and Palau and the Pacific Islands are in its crosshairs.

So you don't want to choose between China and the United States? That's understandable. But remove the US presence – and the US military – from the Pacific region and you've created a vacuum.

Vacuums get filled, and eventually, the PRC and the Chinese Communist Party will fill the vacuum and choose for you.

Is the PRC a“dangerous” regime? Look at its actions. It has seized the South China Sea and daily threatens and bullies its neighbors – ask Manila, Tokyo, Taipei and Hanoi about this. And its subversion and political warfare campaign in the Pacific – to include on and against Palau – is longstanding.

As for“bad”? Removing and selling organs from live prisoners who are guilty of nothing more than being religious, and locking up a million of its own citizens – Muslims – in concentration camps is by definition“bad.”

Chinese people themselves want out. The United States has an illegal immigration problem – including thousands from the PRC. The PRC does not.

Palau's people have made a thoughtful decision to formally align with the United States. Just as Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, Thailand 31 members of NATO, and others have. And these nations all have far more resources with which to defend themselves than does Palau.

But you know all this-Palau debated this decades ago and still does. So why did that article piece appear in September-just before a JCM meeting and in the lead-up to the election?

The reporter has an agenda. He's not just anti-military, but anti-American. You can tell a lot about a reporter by looking at where they publish and what they've written. In this case, the author is writing in Responsible Statecraft .

Responsible Statecraft is the online magazine of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Among the funders of Quincy is East West Bank.

East West Bank CEO and chairman is Dominic Ng, a Hong Kong-born American who has strong ties to China. The Hollywood Reporter wrote in 2016 that Ng“has emerged as one of only a handful of top US-based bank­ers connecting American studios with wealthy Chinese
investors.”
A 2023 letter from six Republican members of Congress raised concerns about his appointment as a US member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Advisory Council. The letter states :

There's more, of course. Quincy Institute's other backers include Arca Foundation, which has long focused on making life easier for the rulers of another communist country, Cuba.

And then there's the writer himself: A list of some of his articles show a common theme. It seems there is no problem that isn't caused by what he regards as the worst country on the planet, the United States. Palau is just the latest prop in his anti-American attacks.

Note he has no feature-length coverage of China killing their own citizens to sell their organs, attacking neighbors like the Philippines and trying to steal its territory or, indeed, trying to deliberately crash the Palauan economy to force policy changes – and bringing crime, drugs, corruption and environmental damage to Palau.

This isn't the only recent article about Palau trying to muddy the waters – with the seeming end result of lowering the pressure on China. While the first author focused on undermining US defense activities, the second focused on undermining investigations into PRC-linked activities.

That article by a non-Palauan writer warned against“labeling respected leaders and media outlets as“'pro-Beijing' with no basis” – even though one of the people he mentioned speaks about his desire to do business with China – adding“if you call someone 'pro-China' for long enough, one day you might get your wish.”

So, essentially saying any reporting on Chinese influence activities is likely to result in PRC influence activities.

Bottom line is, Palauans can decide for themselves if the United States is a good or bad country.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Ultimately, these articles and others like them reveal that their authors have a low regard for Palauans and that they think they know more than the people who have survived for centuries through occupations, war and more complicated geopolitics than most Americans can imagine – and emerged as, yes, a sovereign country.

They apparently believe Palauans are too unintelligent to make sound, reasoned decisions on their own.

And if they decide on a course of action different than the author and the institutions behind them approve of, they are stupid, dumb, or deluded by Yankee militarists. Palauans clearly are not stupid nor deserving of condescension. But Island Times readers know that.

Successive Palauan leaders and citizens have themselves decided the COFA agreements are in their nation's interests.
These are voluntary agreements and can be terminated at will.

Yes, this means giving up some sovereignty – and having the other side give up some of its sovereignty in return. But that's how free nations stay free.

This article was originally published by Island Times .
It is republished with permission.

Already have an account? Sign i Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories OR

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.