This US state does not fall under the NATO treaty. Some experts say that there is a need for change in this.

(CNN) — Sweden became NATO’s newest member this month, joining 31 countries in the security alliance, including the United States. Well, 49 of the 50 states of the United States.

Due to a quirk of geography and history, Hawaii does not technically fall under the NATO treaty.

If a foreign power attacks Hawaii – for example, the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor or the Indo-Pacific Command headquarters northwest of Honolulu – members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be required to respond. Defense of the state.

“It’s the strangest thing,” says David Santoro, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, adding that most Hawaiians don’t even know their state is technically separate from the alliance.

“People assume Hawaii is part of the United States and therefore belongs to NATO,” he says.

But, he believes, the clue is in the name of the alliance: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Of course, Hawaii is in the Pacific, and unlike California, Colorado or Alaska, the 50th state is not part of the continental US that reaches all the way to the North Atlantic Ocean along its eastern shores.

“The argument for not including Hawaii is simply that it’s not part of North America,” Santoro says.

The exception is contained in the Treaty of Washington, the document that established NATO in 1949, a decade before Hawaii became a state.

Although Article 5 of the treaty provides for collective self-defense in the event of a military attack on any member state, Article 6 limits its geographical scope.

Article 6 says, “An armed attack against one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack against the territory of any Party in Europe or North America.” It also says that any island territory must be in the North Atlantic, north of the Tropic of Cancer.

A US State Department spokesperson confirmed that Hawaii does not fall under Article 5, but said Article 4, which says members will consult when a member’s “territorial integrity, political independence, or security” is threatened. , it should cover any situation that may affect the state 50.

The spokesperson also said that any amendment to the treaty to include Hawaii would be unlikely to achieve consensus because other members have territories outside the limits established in Article 5.

For example, NATO did not join the United Kingdom in its 1982 war against Argentina, when Argentine troops invaded the Falkland Islands, a disputed British territory in the South Atlantic.

NATO has not responded to CNN’s request for comment.

Hawaii, Guam, Taiwan and North Korea

Some experts say that times have changed in the decades since the signing of the Washington Treaty, and argue that the current political situation in the Indo-Pacific may require reconsideration.

U.S. military bases in Hawaii could play an important role in countering North Korean aggression and supporting any potential defense of Taiwan.
China’s ruling Communist Party claims the autonomous democratic island, despite never controlling it. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made “reunification” with Taiwan a key part of his overall goal of “rejuvenating” the country by 2049.

Although Chinese leaders have said they hope to regain control of the island by peaceful means, they have not ruled out doing so by force, and in recent years they have increased military threats to the island.

The Taiwan Relations Act requires Washington to provide weapons to defend the island, and President Joe Biden has suggested he would use U.S. military personnel to defend it in the event of a Chinese invasion (although White House officials Has described the US decision to leave it as a policy issue) The unclear issue has not changed).

John Hemmings, director of the Pacific Forum’s Indo-Pacific Foreign and Security Policy Program, says Hawaii’s exclusion from NATO “deterrents” the possibility of a Chinese attack on Hawaii in support of a potential campaign against Taiwan.

He says abandoning Hawaii shows Beijing that European NATO members potentially have a kind of “escape clause” when it comes to defending U.S. territory in that hypothetical situation.

Hemmings says, “Why wouldn’t we keep that deterrent in place?” “If it would actually prevent (China) from attacking Taiwan why would we leave it off the table?”

Hawaii’s strategic importance also holds deep historical significance for the United States. He says, “Pearl Harbor happened here. It was here that the attack took place that led us into World War II, and – it also inspired us to help liberate France.”

“For Americans there is a direct connection between this state and our participation in World War II and, ultimately, our help in contributing to victory over the Axis (the alliance of Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy).”

Hemmings also argues for including Guam, a U.S. Pacific island territory located about 3,000 miles west of Hawaii, under the NATO umbrella.

The island is home to Andersen Air Base, from where the US can launch its B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers into the Indo-Pacific.

Hemings compared Guam’s exclusion from NATO to the way the US left the Korean Peninsula outside the line drawn in the Pacific in January 1950 to prevent the Soviet Union and China from spreading communism. Five months after the so-called Acheson Line was drawn, the Korean War began.

“The adversary feels emboldened to pursue a military conflict, and you end up with a war,” says Hemmings.

Pacific Forum’s Santoro also noted that Guam should be included under the NATO umbrella. “Strategically, Guam is much more important than Hawaii,” he says.

“Alliance of Will”

Other analysts say that if this hypothetical attack occurred in Hawaii or Guam, the deep and enduring ties uniting the United States and its democratic allies would be significantly more important in the countries’ decision-making than technicalities in the NATO treaty.

Louis Simon, director of diplomacy, Center for Security Research, says, “In the event of an attack, I would expect (…) that the United States would try to build a coalition of its own, in which regional allies would primarily participate.” and Strategy from the Brussels School of Government (Belgium).

Simon cites the alliance’s strong and immediate response following the 9/11 attacks, the only time in its 74-year history that NATO has activated the collective self-defense mechanism provided for in Article 5.

“But Washington really chose to conduct its response through a coalition of the willing, not through NATO command,” he says. “I suspect we would see a similar response in the event of an attack on Guam or Hawaii, because the US wants to maintain full military control over (the response) and diplomatic flexibility.”

Simon also says that he sees no real difference between NATO members and the United States and their commitment to the alliance.

NATO is one of the foundations of the transatlantic democratic community. The United States and other NATO members have advocated unprecedented unity among the alliance in opposition to Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. And NATO has also toughened its joint rhetoric on China in recent years, promising to respond to what they describe as “systemic challenges” posed by Beijing.

He says, “Personally, I have no doubt that they would be willing to provide a variety of assistance in the event of an attack against sovereign US territory, both personally and through multilateral bodies such as the EU or NATO. “

CNN’s Jennifer Hunsler contributed to this report.