NATO In Focus? Article 5 (10/2/2001)

Josey1

Article 5It seems that the United States may have pulled something of a "fast one" on the Europeans. By invoking Articles 5 of the NATO Treaty and promptly declaring last week's assault to be an attack on all members of the NATO alliance, Europeans confirmed that they are prepared to support America in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Early this week European leaders seemed to realize what they had signed up for when they began warning of the dangers of precipitous or ham-* retaliation. With last week's invocation, the US changed the interpretation of Article 5 in a way that fundamentally changes NATO's role. European leaders are now worried that the United States, in its grief and anger, might act without serious consultation and then expect their wholehearted support. At the April 1999 Washington, DC summit, the US tried to expand NATO's role in counter-terrorism by broadening the definition of Article 5. The US negotiators tried to get the definition of "attack" to include terrorism, sabotage and organized crime - regardless of its origins. At that time the Europeans refused. They argued that the fight against terrorism was better left to national police and judicial authorities. A compromise was reached in Article 24 of the Washington summit communiqu?. It said: "Any armed attack on the territory of the allies, from whatever direction, would be covered by Articles 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty [the original 1949 treaty]. However, Alliance security must also take account of the global context. Alliance security interests can be affected by other risks of a wider nature, including acts of terrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the disruption of the flow of vital resources. The uncontrolled movement of large numbers of people, particularly as a consequence of armed conflicts, can also pose problems for security and stability affecting the Alliance. Arrangements exist within the Alliance for consultation among the Allies under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty and, where appropriate, co-ordination of their efforts including their responses to risks of this kind." This fuzzy statement meant that NATO would consider joint action when it came to terrorism or a mass exodus of refugees from, say, Macedonia. But it did not require NATO members to act in unison to fight terrorism. The declaration of September 12th changed that, however, and Article 24-at least as it applies to terrorism-was slipped inside Article 5. This will have interesting consequences for the alliance. All European countries knew that solidarity with the US took precedence last week. They also know that it is absolutely imperative to bring violence on the scale of September 11th to an end. Every European had images of their own national capitals in flames from a copycat attack while watching those hijacked airplanes fly into the World Trade Center (in fact, France thwarted a similar attempt on Paris in 1994). That is why they voted to invoke Article 5. But they are afraid the United States will react impulsively and anger the Islamic world into lashing back so they want a veto to prevent any rash actions. Now the Europeans must come up with a convincing argument as to why NATO should not focus so intently on counter-terrorism. Or if they allow for that, why NATO must proceed extremely cautiously, favoring diplomatic channels over force, until no other option exists. An American attack that was seen as misdirected, and that incurred heavy civilian casualties, would not go over well in Europe. Many European nations have had to live with terrorism for decades (although nothing as spectacular as the attacks on New York and Washington) and know that large-scale military action will not end it. European leaders also fear that if America ends up angering Islamic peoples throughout the world with a disproportionate retaliation, European countries will most certainly feel the backlash as well. The European leaders were not mouthing platitudes when they expressed their horror at the death and destruction across the ocean on September 11th. Yet their call for circumspection is one that may not go over well in the United States and, as a result of these diverging views, one or both of the two allies may end up feeling that a "fast-one" has been pulled on them. http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2432/newsletter_info.htm