In a landmark vote on September 12, 2025, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, a resolution reaffirming the global call for a two-state solution and the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. With 143 countries voting in favor, the declaration enjoyed overwhelming support.
But amid global consensus, 10 countries stood in defiance, voting against the resolution. These included some expected players—Israel, the United States (U.S.), Argentina, Paraguay, and Hungary—but also five small nations from the Pacific: Papua New Guinea (PNG), Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Tonga. What surprised observers wasn’t just their dissenting vote—it was the fact that these very countries had previously expressed support for Papuan independence and human rights.
Before that, Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tonga, and Tuvalu and PNG with Israel, the U.S., Hungary, Paraguay, Argentina, the Czech Republic, and Malawi had rejected the ultimatum resolution of the UNGA regarding the occupation of Palestine on September 18, 2024. Besides that, PNG, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau also joined with Israel, the U.S., Argentina, and the Czech Republic in rejecting the UN resolution about Palestine’s membership status in the UN.
This seemingly contradictory behavior has brought an uncomfortable question to the surface: Are these nations applying double standards when it comes to issues of self-determination?
A Tale of Two Causes: Papua and Palestine
For decades, the Palestinian struggle for statehood has been a defining issue in international diplomacy. The demand for a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel is backed by numerous UN resolutions and supported by a wide majority of countries. The 2025 New York Declaration was the latest in a series of efforts to formalize the political will for peace in the Middle East.
Conversely, West Papua—the western half of New Guinea Island currently governed by Indonesia—has long struggled with its own demands for independence, or at the very least, for greater autonomy and recognition of human rights violations. Various reports from NGOs and UN experts have documented systemic abuses, demographic displacement, and limitations on press and political freedom in the region.
Interestingly, many of the same Pacific Island nations that voted against Palestine’s recognition had, at different points, voiced support or sympathy for the Papuan cause. Some even raised the issue of West Papua at the UN or at regional bodies like the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) or Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
So why the divergence?
The Pacific Five: Voting “No” at the UN
The five Pacific nations—PNG, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Tonga—were part of the minority that rejected Palestine’s right to statehood in the 2025 vote. The motivations vary slightly among them, but several common themes emerged:
- Religious Influence and Evangelical Zionism
A prominent factor in these countries, especially PNG and Tonga, is the strong influence of Christian evangelical beliefs, particularly among Pentecostal and Evangelical groups. These communities often interpret Biblical scripture as favoring Israel’s claim to the Holy Land and consider support for Israel a divine obligation.
According to political analysts interviewed by Detik and CNN Indonesia, some of these governments are influenced directly or indirectly by these theological frameworks. Israel is viewed not merely as a political state but as a biblically ordained nation, and any support for Palestine is perceived as antagonistic to Israel’s divine legitimacy.
- Strategic Alignments and Dependency on the West
Small Pacific nations are heavily reliant on aid and development partnerships, particularly with the U.S., Australia, and their allies. Micronesia and Palau, for example, are bound by Compacts of Free Association (COFA) with the U.S., allowing Washington to influence their defense and foreign policy in exchange for financial assistance.
Thus, these nations often align with U.S. voting patterns at the UN. In the case of Palestine, the U.S. has historically vetoed or voted against resolutions perceived as unfavorable to Israel. These alliances, cemented through economic and security dependencies, create incentives for Pacific nations to mirror the U.S. stance—even when it appears inconsistent with their previous positions.
- Economic Ties and Political Calculations
PNG, in particular, has recently expanded its economic and diplomatic relations with Israel. The opening of a new PNG embassy in Jerusalem in 2023, for example, marked a deepening of bilateral ties. Reports from CNN Indonesia suggest that trade, agriculture, defense cooperation, and religious diplomacy were key drivers behind this move.
Besides that, Israel is suspected of conducting checkbook diplomacy, or economic diplomacy, against these countries. The Zionist state has reportedly poured millions of dollars into Nauru and its allies to help develop infrastructure.
In such a context, supporting Palestine at the UN could jeopardize newly cultivated partnerships. For these countries, pragmatic interests seem to outweigh ideological consistency.
The Papua Paradox: Why Support One and Not the Other?
The paradox becomes stark when contrasted with these countries’ previous advocacy for West Papua. PNG shares a direct border and cultural affinity with West Papuans, many of whom are Melanesian Christians. In forums such as the MSG, some of these nations had publicly backed West Papuan calls for greater autonomy or at least the right to be heard.
In 2019, Vanuatu, a key regional voice, even pushed for the UN Human Rights Commissioner to be granted full access to Papua to investigate rights violations. While not all Pacific nations have taken such bold steps, symbolic support or rhetorical solidarity for Papua was common. Before that, in 2016 and 2017, Vanuatu, along with the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Tonga, Palau, and Tuvalu, raised the issue of human rights violations and self-determination for Papua at the UNGA session. Vanuatu also supported the formation of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) led by Benny Wenda through the Saralana Declaration on December 6, 2014, and permitted the establishment of a ULMWP office in Port Vila.
So why is there empathy for West Papua but none for Palestine, whose situation bears striking similarities—long-term occupation, demographic changes, political repression, and international controversy?
- Cultural and Geographic Proximity
One explanation lies in ethnic and cultural ties. West Papuans are Melanesians, sharing ancestry, traditions, and Christian faith with the people of PNG, the Solomon Islands, and Fiji. The cause resonates not only politically but also personally. Palestine, in contrast, is geographically and culturally distant.
This proximity breeds emotional and political investment. Papua’s fate could directly affect neighboring Pacific nations, especially PNG, in terms of refugees, border tensions, or regional diplomacy.
Ian Wilson, an expert on international politics and security from Murdoch University in Australia, said that the attitudes of Pacific Island countries toward Palestine are influenced by religious views. These countries, he continued, view Israel as a holy land and consider Jews to be the chosen people. “So supporting Israel is equated with protecting the holy land. This has an impact at the government level.”
- Perceived Risk and Political Safety
Standing up for Papua, while diplomatically sensitive, does not carry the same global consequences as opposing Israel. Indonesia, while a major Southeast Asian power, does not possess the same international lobbying power or veto clout as the U.S. and Israel.
Criticizing Indonesia on Papua in Pacific forums may generate tension, but it does not risk sanctions, aid cuts, or diplomatic backlash from superpowers. On the other hand, supporting Palestine can provoke strong reactions from Israel’s allies, which may endanger foreign aid, defense cooperation, or technical partnerships.
- Symbolism vs. Substance
For many Pacific states, support for Papua may have been largely symbolic—a regional solidarity gesture that won domestic support but required minimal cost. Supporting Palestine, by contrast, would require taking a stand in a highly polarized global conflict, which may be seen as too risky or unrelated to domestic interests.
Thus, Papua becomes a “safe” cause, while Palestine is a dangerous one—despite the fact that the latter has far broader international backing.
Critics Speak Out: The Dangers of Double Standards
Scholars and activists have criticized this inconsistent approach. Teuku Rezasyah, an international relations expert from Padjadjaran University, noted that loyalty to major powers often clouds moral judgment. He argues that “selective diplomacy weakens the credibility of small nations that claim to stand for justice.”
Similarly, human rights advocates point out that double standards undermine global solidarity. If states pick and choose when to support self-determination based on convenience, it delegitimizes all such causes, including their own.
What This Means for the Future
The contrasting positions on Papua and Palestine expose a deeper truth about small-state diplomacy: that power asymmetries, economic dependency, and domestic politics often drive decisions more than consistent moral frameworks.
For activists in West Papua and Palestine alike, this reality can be disheartening. It suggests that support may be conditional, symbolic, or situational, rather than rooted in unwavering principle.
But it also offers a lesson: that international solidarity must be built not just on sentiment, but on sustained commitment and clear ethical standards. If the world is to take self-determination seriously, then nations—large and small—must show that they are willing to defend it even when inconvenient.
Conclusion
The 2025 UN vote on Palestine laid bare a complex truth: even those who speak the language of justice may falter when confronted with geopolitical pressure or religious ideology. The five Pacific countries that once stood with West Papua chose to turn their backs on Palestine.
Whether this reflects strategic necessity, cultural distance, or diplomatic compromise, the result is the same: a fracture in the global moral consensus.
As West Papuans continue to struggle for recognition and Palestinians fight for sovereignty, the international community must ask itself: Are we allies only when it’s easy? Or will we stand for justice even when it’s hard?