Any attack on Guam or other territories in the Pacific, “even if outside of the geographic scope of Article V, would almost certainly draw allied reaction," according to Philip G. Laidlaw, principal deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs.
Right?
Wrong, according to some defense experts.
"Guam and the other islands are not protected by NATO’s Article V. If the territories and island nations were attacked, there would be no requirement for NATO to respond," said David Santoro, president and CEO of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum think tank. "I believe there should be a change, but I don’t know that it is likely to be enacted.”
Even Laidlaw’s interpretation of Article V rings hollow and tentative. Any stumbling block can be discussed through Article IV, which allows members to bring security-related concerns to the North Atlantic Council, he said in response to Rep. Ed Case’s concern that the treaty “does not explicitly extend its protections to U.S. states, territories and possessions in the Indo-Pacific.”
Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty pledges the alliance’s collective response if a NATO ally is under attack. However, Article VI of the pact sets geographical restrictions on Article V, which applies only to members' territories in Europe, North America, Turkey and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Laidlaw himself acknowledged that the geographical scope of Article VI “does not reflect changes to individual allied territories since the founding of NATO.”
Also bound to be left out in the cold are the U.S.-affiliated Pacific island states, including Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. While the U.S. considers them part of homeland defense, these island states sit on the treaty's periphery.
Decrying what he calls a "historical anachronism” of the Pacific areas' exclusion from the treaty, Case said, “There is a reasonable level of concern that at least some of our NATO allies might not consider Article V invoked if we are attacked in the Indo-Pacific.”
Guam is at the core of the U.S. military’s power posture in the Indo-Pacific region to neutralize China’s growing military power and North Korea's aggressive behavior. While the strategy focuses on deterrence, critics fear that the military buildup makes these locations magnets for attacks.
Who you gonna call?
The United States’ increased engagements with Asian and Pacific allies are no coincidence. In recent years, Washington has been cramming to build a network of allies and revitalizing existing NATO-like treaties such as the AUKUS, the QUAD and the ANZUS.
In the past few months, U.S. officials have been grinding away at sealing bilateral and trilateral agreements with Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.
“For many years, except for a potential fight on the Korean Peninsula, nobody paid much attention to the idea that the United States might need some real help to defend itself, its interests, and its friends in the Asia-Pacific region. Yes, some bases and access might be helpful, but in a fight, it was thought that the Americans could handle anything that might come along,” said Cleo Paskal, a non-resident senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies,
and Col. Grant Newsham, the former U.S. Marine attaché at the U.S. Embassy.
“Those days are over, and the idea that America’s allies need to do much more to defend and pitch in alongside U.S. forces is de rigueur,” they said.
Guam Del. James Moylan thinks otherwise, shrugging off the U.S. Pacific territory’s geographical ambivalence as a “minor technicality.”
“NATO doctrine explicitly states that the (People’s Republic of China) directly challenges the alliances’ interests, security and values. This challenge is not lost on NATO leadership, and members continue to build the strategy to counter the irregular threat the PRC poses,” Moylan writes in an op-ed piece published in the Federal Times.
“With that said, it is foolish to assume the Hawaii-based U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and the Guam-based Joint Regions Marianas would be abandoned because they ‘fall out of NATO’s purview,’” Moylan said.
In the meantime, those of us dragged into the brutality of geopolitics and confused by diplomatic complexities sit, watch and pray for salvation.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly edition
Comentarios