The decline of US influence in the Pacific: A blessing for Palestine

A careful examination of the United Nations General Assembly’s voting records reveals a paradox. The collection of small and geographically isolated Pacific Island Countries (PICs), separated by thousands of miles from the Middle East, has emerged as some of the most consistent supporters of Israel. This alignment becomes even stranger when one considers that these states have been engaged in a long struggle for freedom and independence. Yet, they still align themselves with Israel, which has suppressed the Palestinian people for decades. The source behind this odd pairing is the United States (US), which has long considered the Pacific as its backyard. However, the recent decline in the US influence in the region can be a blessing in disguise for Palestine.

The PICs represent only 0.03 per cent of the global population, but they carry an outsized voice in global politics, due to the “one country, one vote” system in the UNGA. These states have utilised their disproportionate influence on international platforms to the benefit of Israel. For example, amongst the 10 nations that voted against the 12 September resolution, 4 were PICs. This was not something out of the blue but part of a systemic voting trend that has been in place for years. The consequence of this partnership results in blunting the wave of international criticism that Israel is receiving due to its deplorable treatment of the Palestinian people and lessens its increasingly global isolation.

This state of affairs is not a coincidence but an outcome of the post-World War II dynamics established by the US in the Pacific. For decades, the US has influenced the PICs through economic aid, security guarantees, and Compact of Free Association Agreements. The effectiveness of this approach is evident from the fact that the Marshall Islands and Micronesia have the highest voting coincidence with the US in the UNGA. This has led the US to have guaranteed support for all its measures, including protecting Israel from the repercussions of its own heinous actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

However, the recent UNGA vote on the Palestinian question also revealed a significant break from the historical norm. The Marshall Islands, which has a 75 per cent voting concurrence with the US, chose to support Palestinian statehood. This was mirrored by the Solomon Islands, with Fiji and Samoa abstaining rather than aligning with the US. This significant departure from the norm signals that the PICs should not be considered as a single uniform bloc. More significantly, it signifies that the US influence in the region is on the decline.

The socio-economic conditions of the Pacific Islands reveal the circumstances behind this decline. The Pacific is the world’s largest aid-dependent region. Seven of the world’s fifteen most aid-dependent countries are found in this region. The US has been a continuous source of aid, earning it significant support in the PIC capitals. However, the recent cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the enactment of tariffs on the PIC’s vulnerable economies and delays in diplomatic outreach have soured the relationship. This is further exacerbated by Washington’s lacklustre attitude towards Climate Change, which is rightfully considered by the PICs as an existential threat.

Moreover, new actors have emerged to fill the space left by the US. China has made notable inroads into the region, providing $256 million in 2022. It has become the second largest donor to the PICs, only trailing behind Australia. In addition to economic lures, China is also increasingly engaging the region diplomatically. It hosted the 3^rd China-Pacific Island Countries Foreign Ministers meeting in May 2025, where it announced more than 100 climate-related projects for this region. This outreach has resulted in PICs aligning with Chinese interests, such as ending diplomatic relations with Taiwan and Solomon Islands signing a defence treaty with China. These geopolitical shifts have worked to erode PIC’s support for the US and, through it, Israel.

This grants the PICs more options to navigate the modern geopolitical landscape. They are no longer solely reliant on the US and can pursue strategic balancing to attain maximum benefits for themselves. This was observed recently when Pacific Island leaders barred both the US and China from attending the 2025 Pacific Island Forum. This was a surprising turn of events in a region which is often only thought of as an arena for geopolitical interests and lacking an independent voice. This signals the PIC’s push for strategic autonomy and pursuing personal causes rather than those imposed on them.

Alongside these shifts, there is a growing public opposition to Israel’s actions in the Middle East. Protests have taken place in Fiji, Samoa, and other PICs, which highlights the fact that public opinion in the region is shifting. The changing regional circumstances can only help in this endeavour. The PIC governments, which have actively suppressed pro-Palestinian marches, are now less constrained by the need to appease the US. Thus, they may become more amenable to allowing these nascent pro-Palestinian voices to grow, which would spark a wider regional change in perspective.

The Palestinians and the Pacific Islanders are natural allies. Both peoples have a long struggle of striving for independence and self-determination. Now that the influence of any single power in the region is declining and the PICs are becoming increasingly diplomatically untethered, it provides the Palestinians a unique opportunity. By achieving closer relations with the PICs and highlighting their shared efforts, Palestinians can remove a bulwark for Israel. This would serve to isolate Israel internationally and increase diplomatic pressure. As the Pacific Islands carve out a new path for themselves, Palestine may finally find the support that it has long been denied in this region.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.