4

What would happen if a NATO member was compelled to go to war because of a separate defense pact they were a part of?

As an example, Russia has threatened Sweden and Finland if they try to join NATO. While these 2 countries aren't part of NATO, they are part of the EU's mutual defense clause, and the EU contains NATO members. I would assume that, should Sweden be invaded, France, Germany, and other European NATO members would be obligated to respond. Would this, then, involve other NATO countries outside the EU, like the US and UK? Obviously there would be plenty of political pressure to get involved, but I'm interested in the question of what the NATO treaties require and/or encourage.

divibisan
  • 25,926
  • 6
  • 110
  • 135
  • 1
    As much as I would like to know the answer to this question at this point I think it is hypothetical and we can't give an answer. It would also depend on what happens to the NATO members after they join the defense of EU members who are not NATO members. – Joe W Feb 25 '22 at 21:40
  • 3
    @JoeW I don't think it's hypothetical at all. The NATO treaties specify that if, say, France is attacked, all the other NATO nations need to defend them. But what if France is attacked because they're defending Sweden, which they're obligated to do by the EU? The answer is simply in the text of the treaties. Of course, the US could choose to help or not to help for other reasons, but I'm only asking about the NATO requirements – divibisan Feb 25 '22 at 21:47
  • At this point I think it is hypothetical that Russia will take action against Finland/The Netherlands that would require the EU to respond with military force. From what I have seen Russia doesn't have the free forces to make an attack on other countries at this point and we would likely learn more if they started moving troops towards the border of Finland. And while Finland does border Russia The Netherlands does not and they are not in a position where Russia can easily attack them without going through NATO allies. For now what you are talking about appears to be just talk. – Joe W Feb 25 '22 at 22:15
  • 3
    @JoeW That's purely a example that has no specific relevance to the question. I'm not looking for punditry on what is likely to happen - I'm curious what the official, ratified treaties say – divibisan Feb 25 '22 at 22:42
  • I would guess that treaties don't go into much detail about what happens if parties take action due to other treaties that they are part of. It seems to me that would be a loophole for forcing action if country A and B had mutual defense treaties, country A didn't want one with country C while country B has one with country C. If country B goes to the defense of country C that could cause country A to go to its defense as well even if they don't want to. – Joe W Feb 25 '22 at 22:55
  • @JoeW I would think that's exactly the kind of thing they'd go into excruciating detail on. The scenario you described is absolutely the sort of thing that can happen – see WWI – and I'm curious to what extent the NATO treaties take that into account and how (if?) they deal with that. – divibisan Feb 25 '22 at 23:19
  • 1
    It's possible they don't mention it at all, which would be an interesting (and concerning) answer, but I think this is absolutely something that someone with knowledge of NATO treaties (or who's willing to read them) can answer objectively – divibisan Feb 25 '22 at 23:20
  • You might be interested: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/47264/what-happens-if-a-country-signs-mutual-defense-treaties-with-several-countries-w – Allure Feb 26 '22 at 01:22
  • "absolutely something that someone with knowledge of NATO treaties (or who's willing to read them) can answer objectively": the NATO treaty (known, not surprisingly, as the North Atlantic Treaty) is roughly 1100 words. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. But you don't need to read them to know that @JoeW is right, broadly speaking: at 1100 words, there's not a lot of detail. There is some, but not a lot. – phoog Feb 26 '22 at 07:34
  • This question would have profited from citing possibly relevant articles from the NATO treaty, which is easily searchable. It only has 14 articles. Also NATO is a defensive pact. It only triggers if a NATO member is attacked. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 26 '22 at 09:15
  • 1
    And it doesn't trigger if that member started the attack – Joe W Feb 26 '22 at 14:57

1 Answers1

7

The NATO treaty applies to attacks on a country within the Treaty Area. The key here is Article V:

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.

It has the term "such action as it deems necessary," which is not an automatic mechanism. It also says "Europe or North America."

  • The Syria conflict spilled into Turkey. This did not trigger the NATO case since NATO did not see a serious threat against Turkish territory.
  • The UK fought Argentina to defend the Falklands. Not a treaty case, because the Falklands are South Atlantic islands. Also not exactly a defensive treaty with the Falklands, but it should answer your question.
  • The US and several allies went to war against Iraq to defend Kuwait. Again not a NATO case. Some NATO members helped, in a coalition of the willing rather than the NATO framework.

So NATO members can clearly go to war without the rest. It remains an interesting question how NATO would act if a NATO member goes to war and gets counterattacked on their territory for that reason.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • Nonetheless the CIA provided some help during the Falklands war etc. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cia-files-reveal-how-us-helped-britain-retake-the-falklands-7618420.html – the gods from engineering Feb 26 '22 at 07:27
  • 4
    @Fizz how is that relevant? The voluntary participation of a NATO member in some action undertaken by another NATO member does not imply that the participation is required by the treaty (and in fact, it was not in this case). – phoog Feb 26 '22 at 07:31
  • Nato has been involved in out-of-area activities. E.g. From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted a relatively small but important support operation in Iraq that consisted of training, mentoring and assisting the Iraqi security forces. The NATO-led mission Resolute Support Mission (RSM) in Afghanistan was launched on 1 January 2015, following the completion of the mission of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Its aim was to provide further training, advice and assistance for the Afghan security forces and institutions. Also Libya. – reallydismayed May 17 '22 at 14:12