The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Veterans > Legislation

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-18-2018, 08:26 AM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Post The Meaning of Nato Agreement Article 5

Collective defence - Article 5
Last updated: 12 Jun. 2018 12:25
RE: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

Highlights:

1. Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.

2. The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

3. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

4. NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

5. NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks

The United States was the object of brutal terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The Alliance's 1999 Strategic Concept had already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to 9/11, however, saw NATO engage actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities. Moreover, it led NATO to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the very first time in its history.

An act of solidarity

On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.

By invoking Article 5, NATO members showed their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States.

Taking action

After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.

On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.

On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.

The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:

1. To enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;

2. To provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;

3. To take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;

4. To backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;

5. To provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism;

6. To provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;

7. That the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve;

8. That the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.

Enhanced collective defense measures

On the request of Turkey, on three occasions, NATO has put collective defence measures in place: in 1991 with the deployment of Patriot missiles during the Gulf War, in 2003 with the agreement on a package of defensive measures and conduct of Operation Display Deterrence during the crisis in Iraq, and in 2012 in response to the situation in Syria with the deployment of Patriot missiles.

Since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the rise of security challenges from the south, including brutal attacks by ISIL and other terrorist groups across several continents, NATO has implemented the biggest increase in collective defence since the Cold War. For instance, it has tripled the size of the NATO Response Force, established a 5,000-strong Spearhead Force and is deploying multinational battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. NATO is also increasing its presence in the southeast of the Alliance, centred on a multinational brigade in Romania. The Alliance has further stepped up air policing over the Baltic and Black Sea areas and continues to develop key military capabilities, such as Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. At the Warsaw Summit in July 2016, Allies also recognised cyber defence as a new operational domain, to enable better protection of networks, missions and operations.

Member countries - Last updated: 26 Mar. 2018 16:53

At present, NATO has 29 members. In 1949, there were 12 founding members of the Alliance: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. The other member countries are: Greece and Turkey (1952), Germany (1955), Spain (1982), the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004), Albania and Croatia (2009), and Montenegro (2017).

Highlights:

a. Provision for enlargement is given by Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

b. Article 10 states that membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”.

c. Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal political decision-making body, on the basis of consensus among all Allies.

History Founding treaty:

The foundations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were officially laid down on 4 April 1949 with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, more popularly known as the Washington Treaty.

Highlights:

a. The Washington Treaty – or North Atlantic Treaty – forms the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – or NATO.

b. The Treaty was signed in Washington D.C. on 4 April 1949 by 12 founding members.

c. The Treaty derives its authority from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which reaffirms the inherent right of independent states to individual or collective defence.

d. Collective defence is at the heart of the Treaty and is enshrined in Article 5. It commits members to protect each other and sets a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

e. The Treaty is short – containing only 14 articles – and provides for in-built flexibility on all fronts.

f. Despite the changing security environment, the original Treaty has never had to be modified and each Ally has the possibility to implement the text in accordance with its capabilities and circumstances.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-18-2018, 08:32 AM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Arrow

Trump Declines to Affirm NATO's Article 5
Speaking in front of the leaders of its member-nations, the president fails to make clear the United States still has the alliance’s back.
By: ROSIE GRAY - MAY 25, 2017

BRUSSELS — President Trump did not explicitly endorse the mutual-aid clause of the North Atlantic Treaty at the NATO summit on Thursday despite previous indications that he was planning to do so, keeping in place the cloud of ambiguity hanging over the relationship between the United States and the alliance.

Speaking in front of a 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial at the new NATO headquarters, Trump praised NATO’s response to the 9/11 attacks and spoke of “the commitments that bind us together as one.”

But he did not specifically commit to honor Article 5, which stipulates that other NATO allies must come to the aid of an ally under attack if it is invoked.

The only time in history that Article 5 has been invoked was after the September 11 attacks, a fact that Trump mentioned. The memorial Trump was dedicating is a piece of steel from the North Tower that fell during the attacks.

“We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11, 2001,” Trump said. “Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective-defense commitment.”

Trump did refer to “commitments,” saying of the memorial, “[t]his twisted mass of metal reminds us not only what we’ve lost, but forever what endures: the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one. ... We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side. And we will never waver in our determination to defeat terrorism and to achieve lasting prosperity and peace.”

The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening that Trump would use the speech to finally endorse Article 5. Though top members of his administration, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence have done so, Trump’s refusal has shaken NATO allies.

Trump has been a harsh critic of NATO overall, at one point calling it “obsolete.” He has repeatedly criticized other allies for not paying their fair share of the defense burden of the alliance. He has pushed the alliance to do more to combat terrorism. At the NATO leaders summit, counter-terrorism and burden-sharing will dominate the agenda—not Russia.

Trump did mention the Russian threat in his remarks on Thursday. “The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders,” he said.

But he spent the bulk of the speech haranguing the other members of the alliance—standing only feet from him—for not meeting their spending obligations.

“Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense,” Trump said. “We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even two percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness and the size of forces,” he added. “Two percent is the bare minimum for confronting today’s very real and very vicious threats.”

Trump even took a slight dig at the new NATO headquarters, which are being unveiled in time for this leaders’ meeting. “I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost,” Trump said. “I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.”

After the speech, televisions in the press center at NATO showed Trump in discussion with a group of other leaders including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

NATO had sought to make Trump’s inaugural visit as smooth as possible. The conference’s two topics of focus—spending and counterterrorism—are the two main thrusts of Trump’s critique of the alliance.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, speaking to the pool reporters after the speech, said that despite the president’s omission, “We’re not playing cutesy with this. He’s fully committed.”

“If you are standing at a ceremony talking about the invocation of Article 5 after 9/11 and talking about that, that is a pretty clear indication of the support that exists for it,” Spicer said. “I’ve seen some of the questions I’ve gotten from you guys, but there’s 100 percent commitment to Article 5.”

In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trump’s silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATO—which he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenberg’s visit to Washington last month—he “has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATO’s core task.”

At a press conference after the leaders’ meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. “President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial,” Stoltenberg said. “And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. … We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration,” he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. “It’s not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.”

Asked if Trump’s demands about burden-sharing had troubled any allies, Stoltenberg said they had already heard Trump being “blunt” on spending before. “We have to invest in defense not just to please the United States but we have to invest in European defense because it is in our own interest to do so,” he said.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-18-2018, 08:38 AM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Arrow The Zombie Policy of NATO Expansion

The Zombie Policy of NATO Expansion
By DANIEL LARISON • July 18, 2018, 11:12 AM
Re: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ato-expansion/

Rod Dreher commented on Trump’s interview with Tucker Carlson and the question of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies:

What’s wrong with the question? I mean, look, I think Trump’s performance in Helsinki was awful too — here’s George F. Will, breathing straight fire — but I can’t see why it is so obviously wrong for Tucker Carlson to ask that question.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the question Carlson asked, but a better question for Trump would be: “Why did you support Montenegro’s accession to NATO if you don’t think the U.S. should defend them?” Montenegro joined the alliance last year while Trump was president, and the U.S. could have opposed their membership. That didn’t happen. Instead, the alliance brought in another dependent that won’t be able to contribute much to the security of the other members. As I said last week, if Trump were really opposed to free-riding allies, he wouldn’t want NATO to keep adding new ones, but he didn’t stop Montenegro’s accession and he evidently made no objection when Macedonia was invited to join at the Brussels summit.

Adding Montenegro is relatively harmless by itself, since Montenegro faces no military threats from any of its neighbors (two of which are already in NATO). That just underscores how unnecessary and useless bringing them into the alliance is. I have no idea where Trump is getting this stuff about “aggressive” Montenegrins. Expanding the alliance into the Baltics was a serious mistake, and further expansion into the former USSR would be inviting disaster. Adding Montenegro to the alliance was pointless as far as allied security is concerned. NATO membership should be granted based on what the new members can offer the alliance, and not as a reward for its political reforms or because it resolved a dispute with a neighbor.

Each round of NATO expansion happens with no real debate, and then when the potential costs and risks of adding new members becomes apparent later on it is too late to undo the ill-considered expansion without undermining the entire structure of the alliance. Atlanticists dismiss concerns about expansion before it happens, and then when the predicted problems crop up they say, “Well, there’s nothing we can do about it now.” Adding Montenegro and Macedonia to the alliance isn’t likely to plunge us into a war anytime soon, but it isn’t going to make the alliance any stronger or more secure. The question that ought to be asked before any new member is brought in is simple: “does this make the U.S. and its allies more secure?” If the answer is no, or if adding a new member makes the alliance less secure, that state shouldn’t be added. According to that standard, Montenegro shouldn’t have been brought in, Macedonia shouldn’t have been invited, and Georgia and Ukraine shouldn’t even be considered.

In the absence of a real debate about any of this, the zombie policy of NATO expansion keeps stumbling onward.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.