Earlier this month, Sweden joined 31 other countries, including the United States, as a new member of the security alliance. This therefore represents 49 of the 50 states of the Union. Due to a geographical and historical particularity, Hawaii is not officially part of the NATO alliance.
Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be required to defend Hawaii if a foreign force attacked it, such as the U.S. Navy installations at Pearl Harbor or the Indo-Pacific Command headquarters in the North. West Honolulu. According to David Santoro, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, “it’s the strangest thing.” He also notes that most Hawaii residents are unaware that their state is officially independent from the alliance.
He says that because people often believe Hawaii is part of the United States, NATO protects it. However, he acknowledges that the name of the alliance – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – is a giveaway. Hawaii is of course in the Pacific and is not part of the continental United States that borders the North Atlantic Ocean on its eastern shores, like California, Colorado, or Alaska. Hawaii is the 50th state.
“Hawaii is not part of North America, so that’s the argument for not including it,” Santoro says. The 1949 Washington Treaty, which founded NATO ten years before Hawaii became a state, details the exception.
Article 6 of the Treaty restricts the geographical scope of collective self-defence, although Article 5 of the Treaty allows it in the event of a military attack against a Member State. Article 6 provides that an armed attack against the territory of a Party in Europe or North America is considered an armed attack against one or more of the Parties. Additionally, it stipulates that any island territory must be located north of the Tropic of Cancer, in the North Atlantic.
Hawaii is not covered by Article 5, according to a U.S. State Department spokesperson, but any circumstances that would impact the 50th state should be covered by Article 4, which states that members will consult when the “territorial integrity, political independence or security” of any member is threatened.
The spokesperson added that because other members have territory outside the boundaries specified in Article 5, a treaty revision to include Hawaii is unlikely to be approved by consensus.
For example, when Argentine troops invaded the Falkland Islands, a disputed British territory in the South Atlantic, NATO refrained from joining the conflict with Argentina in 1982, even though the United Kingdom was a founding member of NATO.
North Korea, Taiwan, Guam and Hawaii
In the decades since the signing of the Washington Treaty, some analysts say circumstances have changed and the current political climate in the Indo-Pacific region may require re-examination. This is due to the possibility that U.S. military installations in Hawaii will be critical to thwarting North Korean aggression and contributing to any future Taiwanese defense.
Although it has never controlled the democratic island, the ruling Chinese Communist Party lays claim to the territory. “Reunification” with Taiwan is a crucial part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s broader plan to “rejuvenate” the country by 2049.
Although they have expressed a desire to seize the island peacefully, Chinese leaders have increased military intimidation of the region in recent years and have not ruled out the use of force to achieve this.
White House officials say U.S. policy remains unchanged, but U.S. President Joe Biden has indicated he will use U.S. military personnel to defend the island in the event of a Chinese invasion. The Taiwan Relations Act requires Washington to provide weapons for the island’s defense.
The Center for a New American Security conducted a wargame in 2022 in which China attacked U.S. command and control facilities in Hawaii as part of its efforts to annex Taiwan. Hawaii’s withdrawal from NATO, according to John Hemmings, senior director of the Indo-Pacific foreign policy and security program at the Pacific Forum, removes “an element of deterrence” in the likelihood of a strike Chinese action on Hawaii in support of any future Taiwan campaign. .
He says that by excluding Hawaii, European NATO members are signaling to Beijing that they could have a small “escape clause” when it comes to defending American territory in such hypothetical circumstances. “Why wouldn’t we use this deterrent that we have?” Hemmings said. Why would we exclude that from the discussion if it would actually prevent (China) from invading Taiwan?
Hawaii’s strategic importance has deep historical resonance for the United States. This is the location of Pearl Harbor. It was here that the attack that triggered our entry into the Second World War took place and incidentally, it is also the reason why we contributed to the liberation of France,” he explains. “There is a clear connection to Americans between this state, our participation in World War II, and ultimately our assistance in the defeat of the Axis (the coalition of Nazi Germany, Japan, and the Italy). »
Additionally, Hemmings advocates for Guam, a U.S. Pacific island state located about 3,000 miles west of Hawaii, to join NATO. Andersen Air Base is located on the island, which has long been a hub of North Korean saber hunting. From there, the United States can fire its B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers into the Indo-Pacific.
Hemmings compares Guam’s absence from NATO to the fact that the United States left the Korean peninsula outside the line it drew across the Pacific in January 1950 in an effort to prevent China and Soviet Union to spread communism. The Korean War began five months after the Acheson Line was drawn.
According to Hemmings, “the enemy feels emboldened to wage military conflict, and you end up having a war anyway.” Santoro of the Pacific Forum also says Guam should be part of NATO. He says, “Guam matters much more strategically than Hawaii.”
Partnership of those who wish it
Some researchers argue that the strong and enduring ties between the United States and its democratic allies would have far greater influence on national decision-making than a simple NATO treaty in the event of a hypothetical attack on Hawaii or Guam.
According to Luis Simon, director of the Center for Research on Security, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Brussels School of Governance in Belgium, “I would expect…the United States to try to put together a coalition of the willing primarily involving – but certainly not exclusively – regional allies” in the event of an attack.
Simon points out that in its 74-year history, NATO has only activated the collective self-defense mechanism under Article 5 once, i.e. following of the September 11 attacks. This response was rapid and energetic. He adds: “But Washington has really decided to use a coalition of the willing to lead its response rather than NATO command. “I think the United States would want to retain full military control over (the response) and diplomatic flexibility in the event of an attack on Guam or Hawaii.”
Simon adds that he sees no real difference between NATO countries’ allegiance to the United States and the alliance. The transatlantic democratic community is based on NATO. NATO countries, including the United States, have praised the alliance’s extraordinary solidarity in the face of Russia’s unexpected invasion of Ukraine. In recent years, NATO has also become more assertive in its shared rhetoric toward China, promising to address what it calls Beijing’s “systemic challenges.”
In the event of an attack on American sovereign territory, “I personally have no doubt that they would be ready to provide different forms of assistance, including individually and through multilateral forums like (the European Union ) or NATO,” the man said.