NATO and Indo-Pacific: A Review

The author had some conversations with colleagues recently about the Indo-Pacific alliance structure, and it was noted that several members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have territories in and around the Indo-Pacific region. This led to some discussion about NATO’s responsibilities to the Indo-Pacific, especially if a regional armed conflict started that involved the United States. The alliance’s governing documents address just such a situation.

NATO was created in 1949 as a defensive alliance against Soviet encroachment in Europe. It has since grown to encompass 32 members on both sides of the Atlantic, including most nations in Europe. One member country (Turkey) is in Asia, while two (the United States and Canada) are in North America. Four member nations – the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France – either border the Indo-Pacific region, have territories therein, or both. Several members (Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany) were once Pacific colonial powers and maintain some ties to the region.

To this day, the 14 articles of the North Atlantic Treaty govern NATO. Originally signed in April 1949, it has since been amended as the alliance has grown and changed. From the Pacific perspective, Article 5 and Article 6 are the most important to consider.[1]

Article 5, perhaps the best-known part of the treaty, reads as follows: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

“Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” This article has been invoked once, in response to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.[2]

Article 6 offers clarification to the above, in two parts. The first outlines where Article 5 applies: “on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”[3] Note the limitation on territory, and the specific delineation of islands in the North Atlantic. France’s possessions in the Indian Ocean and Pacific are not covered, nor are Britain’s Indian Ocean Territories and other overseas possessions.[4] For the United States, it means that attacks on the State of Hawaii or other Pacific territories do not fall under Article 5. Significantly, Alaska and the Aleutians are covered under Article 5, as they are part of North America.

But what about attacks on ships or units, especially those who may be operating in Pacific waters? Article 6 addresses that scenario also, stating Article 5 apples to an armed attack “on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.” The geographic limitation extends to an area roughly corresponding to a box running from the Florida Keys north to Greenland, then east to Murmansk, south to Turkey and the eastern Mediterranean coast, then west along northern Africa back to Florida. Forces outside that region, such as a Royal Navy task force conducting freedom of navigation operations, German ships supporting an American carrier group, NATO advisors or peacekeepers, or similar are not covered if attacked.

One key distinction is that Articles 5 and 6 apply to the initial armed attacks of a conflict. Once Article 5 is activated, NATO can send forces wherever needed – as seen by the alliance’s long involvement in Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, the treaty makes clear its boundaries. Thus, a Pacific War scenario involving attacks on U.S. bases in Japan, Korea, Guam, or even Hawaii do not trigger NATO’s defense pact. But if strikes also occurred on Alaska and the Aleutians, or on the U.S. and Canadian Pacific Coast, then the provisions of Article 5 do apply in full force.[5]

However, if Article 5 is not triggered, there is a provision in Article 4, as follows: The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them – the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. This article might be invoked in the event of a Pacific conflict, especially given the interests of several member states in the region. But unlike Article 5, it is not an automatic commitment of the alliance.

In any consideration of the Pacific alliance system, international responsibilities, and potential Pacific conflict, it is important to keep these distinctions in mind.