NATO Article 5 after Sept 11

[dullard]

Branching this topic out from the Russia invading Ukraine discussion: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-russia-invades-ukraine.2600920/post-40741177

My question to you, is this: Does NATO's agreement on Sept 12, 2001 involve Afghanistan and Afghanistan only. Here is the full official text of that Sept 12, 2001 agreement:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_18553.htm?selectedLocale=en

On September 12th, the North Atlantic Council met again in response to the appalling attacks perpetrated yesterday against the United States.

The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

The commitment to collective self-defence embodied in the Washington Treaty was first entered into in circumstances very different from those that exist now, but it remains no less valid and no less essential today, in a world subject to the scourge of international terrorism. When the Heads of State and Government of NATO met in Washington in 1999, they paid tribute to the success of the Alliance in ensuring the freedom of its members during the Cold War and in making possible a Europe that was whole and free. But they also recognised the existence of a wide variety of risks to security, some of them quite unlike those that had called NATO into existence. More specifically, they condemned terrorism as a serious threat to peace and stability and reaffirmed their determination to combat it in accordance with their commitments to one another, their international commitments and national legislation.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that in the event of attacks falling within its purview, each Ally will assist the Party that has been attacked by taking such action as it deems necessary. Accordingly, the United States' NATO Allies stand ready to provide the assistance that may be required as a consequence of these acts of barbarism.

Here is the relevant NATO article text: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 5
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.

 

[dullard]

Secondary question: Who makes the decisions as to how to be involved in the event of an invoked Article 5? NATO or the Security Council of the United Nations?

Relevant UN Charter, see section 51: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text#:~:text=Article 51,maintain international peace and security.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

 

[rommelrommel]

Goalpost shift. The question is did it apply to the Iraq war.

Answer: No.

 

[dullard]

Goalpost shift. The question is did it apply to the Iraq war.

Answer: No.

The primary question in this thread is "Does NATO's agreement on Sept 12, 2001 involve Afghanistan and Afghanistan only". Wouldn't your answer be yes to that question?

 

[biostud]

Technically I don't think it was Afghanistan as a nation as much as the Taliban Regime housing bases for Al-Queda terror cells that was the target.

NATO was founded to prevent "ordinary" attacks from states in traditional manner, to make sure the Sovjet didn't occupy more states in Europe.

Not really for prevent 3rd world countries housing terrorists, that could launch terror attacks.

 

[fskimospy]

I think there is no plausible way to make the article 5 declaration apply to Iraq unless the declaration is so wide it meant the US could attack literally any country on earth of its choosing.

Iraq did not finance, plan, assist, or execute the 9/11 attacks. If you can invade them because of it, why not say, Peru?

 

[rommelrommel]

The primary question in this thread is "Does NATO's agreement on Sept 12, 2001 involve Afghanistan and Afghanistan only". Wouldn't your answer be yes to that question?

Sorry, if you need validation for your wrong positions you're going to have to get it elsewhere.

 

[biostud]

Secondary question: Who makes the decisions as to how to be involved in the event of an invoked Article 5? NATO or the Security Council of the United Nations?

Relevant UN Charter, see section 51: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text#:~:text=Article 51,maintain international peace and security.

Uhm, UN has no power in NATO, just like NATO has no power in UN. Two different organizations?

 

[Pens1566]

Well this didn't go the way it was supposed to ...

 

[biostud]

Well this didn't go the way it was supposed to ...

Does it ever?

 

[dullard]

Uhm, UN has no power in NATO, just like NATO has no power in UN. Two different organizations?

Psst: NATO's article 5 says that the power goes to the Security Council of the UN once Article 5 of NATO has been invoked. Two organizations, yes. But one defers to the other. Once Article 5 is invoked, all further decisions shift to the UN.

 

[dullard]

I think there is no plausible way to make the article 5 declaration apply to Iraq unless the declaration is so wide it meant the US could attack literally any country on earth of its choosing.

That is the point. The Article 5 invocation was that wide. Where is the limitation to one specific country here? "The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty"

 

[fskimospy]

That is the point. The Article 5 invocation was that wide. Where is the limitation to one specific country here? "The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty"

There's a legal doctrine where laws are void for vagueness and I think that would apply here - any invocation of article 5 that's so broad that the US may unilaterally attack any country on earth in perpetuity is void for vagueness.

Imagine the US invading Mexico citing the article 5 invocation - people would rightly view that as absurd. Using it to attack Iraq was no less absurd.

 

[Pens1566]

Psst: NATO's article 5 says that the power goes to the Security Council of the UN once Article 5 of NATO has been invoked. Two organizations, yes. But one defers to the other. Once Article 5 is invoked, all further decisions shift to the UN.

That's not what it says. 51 affirms the right to self defence, and article 5 just agrees with that notion. It doesn't cede any power or decision making to the UN. Quite the opposite, it leaves it to the individual nations/members.

Just stop. You're just wrong. It's ok.

 

[dullard]

That's not what it says. 51 affirms the right to self defence, and article 5 just agrees with that notion. It doesn't cede any power or decision making to the UN. Quite the opposite, it leaves it to the individual nations/members.

Just stop. You're just wrong. It's ok.

So you are claiming that this part has little to no meaning? "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."

You are also claiming that the Iraq invasion is a violation of NATO. There were doubts by some countries, but only Turkey didn't really help since they didn't want troops going through their territory.

 

[JTsyo]

Psst: NATO's article 5 says that the power goes to the Security Council of the UN once Article 5 of NATO has been invoked. Two organizations, yes. But one defers to the other. Once Article 5 is invoked, all further decisions shift to the UN.

How does this make any sense? NATO was created to counter the USSR, why would they refer to the UN SC, where the USSR has a veto, to take action? You are misunderstanding the wording. The Article 51 you have included says members can defend themselves and don't need to wait on the SC.

There's a legal doctrine where laws are void for vagueness and I think that would apply here - any invocation of article 5 that's so broad that the US may unilaterally attack any country on earth in perpetuity is void for vagueness.

Imagine the US invading Mexico citing the article 5 invocation - people would rightly view that as absurd. Using it to attack Iraq was no less absurd.

Article 5 wasn't used for Iraq. It was since Iraq didn't comply with UN SC resolution.

The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions.

 

[Pens1566]

So you are claiming that this part has little to no meaning? "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."

You are also claiming that the Iraq invasion is a violation of NATO. There were doubts by some countries, but only Turkey didn't really help since they didn't want troops going through their territory.

No. Reported to means just that. Then the UN gets involved with sanctions/peacekeepers/whatever. They don't assume control automatically. NATO would never build that into their agreements when they were intended to be used in a full on WW3 scenario against the warsaw pact. That interpretation would be a suicide pact and makes zero sense. There's a reason SACEUR exists, and last I checked it wasn't Guterres.

As for Iraq, again, no.There's nothing in NATO preventing any member from participating in conflict outside the agreement. Enforcing UN sanctions is fine. Also, Falklands ... Turkey sat out for political reasons and Kurdish concerns. Which they're allowed to do. In fact, that they sat out Iraq '03 is a blow to your "iTs A nATo opERaTiOn" theory.

Again, NATO's own view on the situation is that there are two separate actions. One is an article 5 (9-11 response), the other (Iraq) was a UN action surrounding violations of existing SC resolutions. Per their own website.

I sat out this thread for a day on purpose, and others dragged the idea just as they should ... for obvious reasons.

 

[Meghan54]

Psst: NATO's article 5 says that the power goes to the Security Council of the UN once Article 5 of NATO has been invoked. Two organizations, yes. But one defers to the other. Once Article 5 is invoked, all further decisions shift to the UN.

Psst: No it doesn't say that. I don't understand how you're misinterpreting NATO's Article 5.

The first paragraph includes what is essentially a restatement of Article 51 from the UN Charter, the article that affirms the right of self-defense and the right to form regional self-defense collectives.

The second paragraph: (the hard one I guess):

"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."

Where does this give the UN control over NATO? Explain.

 

[dullard]

In fact, that they sat out Iraq '03 is a blow to your "iTs A nATo opERaTiOn" theory.

I think this is the misunderstanding here. Iraq was not a NATO operation. NATO article 5 however allowed the US to defend itself by entering other countries, otherwise the US would be subject to Article 1. After that point, everything switched to the UN negotiations.

 

[rommelrommel]

TIL that "reported" means "put in charge of."

 

[dullard]

Where does this give the UN control over NATO? Explain.

You are also not understanding my point. The UN does not have control over NATO. The only ones using the word "control" in this thread are you and Pens1566.

 

[rommelrommel]

I think this is the misunderstanding here. Iraq was not a NATO operation. NATO article 5 however allowed the US to defend itself, otherwise the US would be subject to Article 1.

LOL no, Article 5 doesn't "allow" anyone to defend themselves. That is an inherent right of every state. Self defence is not bound by Article 1, 5, or the UN. No country would ever agree to a treaty that doesn't allow self defence.

 

[Pens1566]

I think this is the misunderstanding here. Iraq was not a NATO operation. NATO article 5 however allowed the US to defend itself, otherwise the US would be subject to Article 1.

Keep digging ...

 

[dullard]

LOL no, Article 5 doesn't "allow" anyone to defend themselves. That is an inherent right of every state. Self defence is not bound by Article 1, 5, or the UN. No country would ever agree to a treaty that doesn't allow self defence.

I edited it to add "by entering other countries". Of course any country can defend themselves. But not all countries in NATO can just invade other countries.

 

[dullard]

Keep digging ...

Please show me where anyone other than you said Iraq was a NATO operation. I said article 5 justified Iraq. I think the reason that you are debating here is because you are debating words that you are putting into my mouth.